Bloom v. Handloff

Superior Court of Delaware

Bloom v. Handloff

97 A. 586, 29 Del. 172, 6 Boyce 172, 1916 Del. LEXIS 17

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedMay 1, 1916

DocketNo. 15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 97 A. 586 (Bloom v. Handloff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloom v. Handloff, 97 A. 586, 29 Del. 172, 6 Boyce 172, 1916 Del. LEXIS 17 (Del. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Pennewill, C. J.,

delivering the opinion of the court.

[1, 2] A motion is made for judgment in the above case notwithstanding the affidavit of defense filed, for the following reasons:

1. In the caption the case is described as being “No. 15, April Term, A. D. —,” the year not being stated.

2. The affidavit does not set out the nature and character of the defense, as the statute requires.

3. That the jurat does not show that the affidavit was sworn to and subscribed by the defendant before the notary who attested the jur^it.

The court are of the opinion that the affidavit is sufficient. The second objection is met by the case of Davenport Co. v. Addicks, 5 Penn. 4, 57 Atl. 532. The other objections are tod technical.

Judgment refused.

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