Huegle v. Bean

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Huegle v. Bean

43 Pa. Super. 352, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 20, 1910

DocketAppeal, No. 239

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 Pa. Super. 352 (Huegle v. Bean) 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

Huegle v. Bean, 43 Pa. Super. 352, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52 (Pa. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The controlling question in this case is precisely the same as that we have fully considered in the case of Rogers v. Toland in which an opinion has been this day filed, ante, p. 248. The learned court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. In our opinion in the case just cited, we have set forth at length the reasons which led us to the conclusion that the affidavit in that case, disclosing the same state of facts as here, was sufficient to prevent judgment, and we accordingly affirmed the order of the court below discharging the rule for judgment. Following that decision, we must conclude in the present case that the learned trial court fell into error in making the rule absolute.

The order making the rule for judgment absolute is reversed and set aside, and said rule is now discharged and the record remitted with a procedendo. The costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellee.

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

Opinion by

Head, J.,

The controlling question in this case is precisely the same as that we have fully considered in the case of Rogers v. Toland in which an opinion has been this day filed, ante, p. 248. The learned court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. In our opinion in the case just cited, we have set forth at length the reasons which led us to the conclusion that the affidavit in that case, disclosing the same state of facts as here, was sufficient to prevent judgment, and we accordingly affirmed the order of the court below discharging the rule for judgment. Following that decision, we must conclude in the present case that the learned trial court fell into error in making the rule absolute.

The order making the rule for judgment absolute is reversed and set aside, and said rule is now discharged and the record remitted with a procedendo. The costs of this appeal to be paid by the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Pa. Super. 352, 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huegle-v-bean-pasuperct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack