Fischer v. Dalmas
34 A. 435, 173 Pa. 296, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 698
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 20, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 325·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
Opinion by
We are not convinced that the learned court erred in refusing to enter judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Inasmuch as the case goes back for a jury trial, it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss the questions presented by the affidavit of defense. If the plaintiff had been disposed to waive his right of appeal to this court and proceed to trial, he might have had his-case finally disposed of long ago.
Appeal dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs, without prejudice, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fischer v. Dalmas, 34 A. 435, 173 Pa. 296, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 698 (Pa. 1896).
34 A. 435 (Fischer v. Dalmas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc.
181 So. 2d 36 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1965)
Carrara Paint Agency Co. v. Naylor
32 Pa. Super. 329 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Appleby v. Barrett
28 Pa. Super. 349 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)