Jackson v. O'Hara

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Jackson v. O'Hara

38 A. 624, 183 Pa. 233, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 746

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 8, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 64·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the judgment entered by the court below against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. For reasons given by the court we think there was no error in “holding that the facts set forth in the defendants’ affidavit of defense ” do not constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of [238]*238action; and hence there was no' error in making the rule for judgment absolute.

The judgment is affirmed for reasons given in the opinion of .the court below.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the judgment entered by the court below against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. For reasons given by the court we think there was no error in “holding that the facts set forth in the defendants’ affidavit of defense ” do not constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of [238]*238action; and hence there was no' error in making the rule for judgment absolute.

The judgment is affirmed for reasons given in the opinion of .the court below.

Jackson v. O'Hara, 38 A. 624, 183 Pa. 233, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 746 (Pa. 1897).

Pincite

38 A. 624 (Jackson v. O'Hara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related