Jenkinson v. Hilands
This text of 23 A. 394 (Jenkinson v. Hilands) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The affidavit of defence is clearly insufficient. The principal matter averred was a suit and judgment before an aider-man for the same cause of action. But that judgment was reversed upon a certiorari, and is no bar to the present proceedings. The only other material averment is that the goods charged to defendant were “ excessive in amount.” This is too vague. It impliedly admits that some goods were furnished, and if the amount charged was excessive, the defendant should have specified the excess, so that the plaintiff could have judgment for the amount admitted to be due.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 A. 394, 146 Pa. 380, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkinson-v-hilands-pactcomplallegh-1892.