Blanton ex rel. Howard v. Craven

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Blanton ex rel. Howard v. Craven

34 A. 437, 173 Pa. 374, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 712

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 27, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 139·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that there was any error in entering judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit. [378]*378In view of the nature of the business relation that existed between the legal plaintiff and the defendant as partners, etc., and the circumstances which led to the execution of the agreement on which this action is based, the averments relied on by the defendant are too vague and indefinite to have justified the court in sending the case to a jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that there was any error in entering judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit. [378]*378In view of the nature of the business relation that existed between the legal plaintiff and the defendant as partners, etc., and the circumstances which led to the execution of the agreement on which this action is based, the averments relied on by the defendant are too vague and indefinite to have justified the court in sending the case to a jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Blanton ex rel. Howard v. Craven, 34 A. 437, 173 Pa. 374, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 712 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

34 A. 437 (Blanton ex rel. Howard v. Craven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related