Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. Ferrero

112 A. 449, 269 Pa. 264, 1921 Pa. LEXIS 540
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 14, 1921·No. Appeal, No. 31·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff leased to defendants a motor truck. The lease required monthly payments of $164.51 each, until the amount of $2,665.04 had been paid, at which time the truck would become the property of defendants. Plaintiff alleged default in these payments and issued a writ of replevin to recover the property. In answer to the statement of claim the affidavit of defense denied default and set up irregular payments, on account of the agreement, of various amounts aggregating a greater sum than was due under the lease at the time the writ of replevin was issued and averred these sums were paid to plaintiff’s agent who was authorized to receive them. The court below discharged a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. This court has frequently held that an order discharging a rule for judgment for alleged insufficiency of an affidavit of defense will not be reversed in doubtful and uncertain [266]*266cases but only in such as are very clear and free from doubt: Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle, 198 Pa. 388; Wilson v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co., 225 Pa. 143. This case is within the rule laid down in the cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. Ferrero, 112 A. 449, 269 Pa. 264, 1921 Pa. LEXIS 540 (Pa. 1921).

112 A. 449 (Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. Ferrero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clair v. Noce
72 Pa. D. & C. 216 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Robinson v. Van Mos
37 Pa. D. & C. 286 (Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, 1939)
Aultman v. Pittsburgh
192 A. 112 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Rudman Et Ux. v. City of Scranton
173 A. 892 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
United Mercantile Agencies v. Slotsky
164 A. 349 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Koser v. American Fruit Growers, Inc.
60 F.2d 313 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1932)
Sagransky v. Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance
92 Pa. Super. 500 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Sagransky v. T.M. F. Ins. Co., Ltd.
92 Pa. Super. 500 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Coles
87 Pa. Super. 432 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Mehrkam v. Schlegel & Williamson, Inc.
5 Pa. D. & C. 668 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1924)
Angelicchio v. Director General of Railroads
81 Pa. Super. 393 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Lykens Mercantile Co.
117 A. 780 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Rhodes v. Terheyden
116 A. 364 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)