First National Bank v. Carroll Township

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

First National Bank v. Carroll Township

13 A.2d 121, 140 Pa. Super. 70, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 416

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 16, 1940

DocketAppeal, 270

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 A.2d 121 (First National Bank v. Carroll Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First National Bank v. Carroll Township, 13 A.2d 121, 140 Pa. Super. 70, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 416 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

By the amendment of May 3, 1917, P. L. 149, to section 12 of the Practice Act of 1915, P. L. 483, it was provided, “That counties, cities, boroughs, townships, school districts and other municipalities shall not be required to file an affidavit of defense.” This incorporated into the Practice Act a similar provision of the Act of April 26, 1893, P. L. 26.

In consequence, judgment cannot be entered against *72 a township, or other municipality, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense: Schjerup v. Upper Merion Twp. Sch. Dist., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 249, 196 A. 922. If an affidavit of defense is filed by one so exempted, it is regarded as surplusage, and does not deprive the defendant of any immunity enjoyed by it: Morgan v. Debon, 337 Pa. 452, 12 A. 2d 5. See also along similar lines, Corry v. Penna. R. R. Co., 194 Pa. 516, 45 A. 341; Cowan v. Nagel, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 122.

As the judgment must be reversed on this ground, we shall not consider questions on the merits, which can be better presented after the facts have been elicited on the trial.

Judgment reversed, with a procedendo.

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

Per Curiam,

By the amendment of May 3, 1917, P. L. 149, to section 12 of the Practice Act of 1915, P. L. 483, it was provided, “That counties, cities, boroughs, townships, school districts and other municipalities shall not be required to file an affidavit of defense.” This incorporated into the Practice Act a similar provision of the Act of April 26, 1893, P. L. 26.

In consequence, judgment cannot be entered against *72 a township, or other municipality, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense: Schjerup v. Upper Merion Twp. Sch. Dist., 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 249, 196 A. 922. If an affidavit of defense is filed by one so exempted, it is regarded as surplusage, and does not deprive the defendant of any immunity enjoyed by it: Morgan v. Debon, 337 Pa. 452, 12 A. 2d 5. See also along similar lines, Corry v. Penna. R. R. Co., 194 Pa. 516, 45 A. 341; Cowan v. Nagel, 89 Pa. Superior Ct. 122.

As the judgment must be reversed on this ground, we shall not consider questions on the merits, which can be better presented after the facts have been elicited on the trial.

Judgment reversed, with a procedendo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 121, 140 Pa. Super. 70, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-carroll-township-pasuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack