Burke v. Adams

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Burke v. Adams

105 Pa. 151, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 70

DecidedJanuary 23, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 105 Pa. 151 (Burke v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Adams, 105 Pa. 151, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 70 (Pa. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, October 6, 1884.

This suit was against Catharine Burke as a feme sole trader oply. It was in that capacity only that a recovery against her was sought.1 Her husband was not joined with her in the action. Her affidavit of defence avers, inter alia, that she was then, and at the time of the issuing of the summons a married woman, ’the wife of Joseph E. Burke, to whom she was married oh the 4th of October, 1860, and that she had lived and cohabited with him as his wife ever since. She further averred “that this deponent is not now and never has been declared a feme sole trader, and is not now and never was such.” This certainly is a positive and distinct denial of the existence of the alleged fact, on which the right to recover against her was based. If there be any other it is not averred in the pleadings. Whether some other grounds may be shown on the trial to maintain the action, is a question not now before us. When an affidavit of defence distinctly and unequivocally denies the fact, without which a recovery cannot be had, the court should not hold it insufficient. This affidavit does so deny such a fact.

It follows the learned Judge erred in ordering a judgment to be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.

Judgment reversed and a procedendo awarded.

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

Chief Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, October 6, 1884.

This suit was against Catharine Burke as a feme sole trader oply. It was in that capacity only that a recovery against her was sought.1 Her husband was not joined with her in the action. Her affidavit of defence avers, inter alia, that she was then, and at the time of the issuing of the summons a married woman, ’the wife of Joseph E. Burke, to whom she was married oh the 4th of October, 1860, and that she had lived and cohabited with him as his wife ever since. She further averred “that this deponent is not now and never has been declared a feme sole trader, and is not now and never was such.” This certainly is a positive and distinct denial of the existence of the alleged fact, on which the right to recover against her was based. If there be any other it is not averred in the pleadings. Whether some other grounds may be shown on the trial to maintain the action, is a question not now before us. When an affidavit of defence distinctly and unequivocally denies the fact, without which a recovery cannot be had, the court should not hold it insufficient. This affidavit does so deny such a fact.

It follows the learned Judge erred in ordering a judgment to be entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.

Judgment reversed and a procedendo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 Pa. 151, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-adams-pa-1884.