Bolton v. Hey

23 A. 973, 148 Pa. 156, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 932
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 28, 1892·No. Appeal, No. 214·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam,

The learned judge of the court below held that the affidavit of defence was sufficient to prevent judgment. In this we think he was right. The case comes directly within the ruling in Schroeder v. Galland, 134 Pa. 277. Indeed, the contract appears to have been drawn with reference to that decision, as its language is identical with the opinion of Mr. Justice G reen. We adhere to the law of that case. It follows that the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

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

Bolton v. Hey, 23 A. 973, 148 Pa. 156, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 932 (Pa. 1892).

23 A. 973 (Bolton v. Hey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bolton v. Hey
31 A. 1097 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1895)
Nice v. Walker
25 A. 1065 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)