Jones v. Carrigan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Jones v. Carrigan

59 Pa. Super. 312, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 24, 1915

DocketAppeal, No. 269

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Pa. Super. 312 (Jones v. Carrigan) 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

Jones v. Carrigan, 59 Pa. Super. 312, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69 (Pa. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The plaintiff brought suit to recover a balance alleged to he due on three shipments of salt, as specified in an exhibit attached to his statement. On a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the court entered a judgment for the amount claimed to be due. In the original and supplemental affidavit of defense, which are to be taken together, there was a distinct and specific denial of the delivery of the ninety tons of salt, and an admission of delivery and acceptance of eighty-five tons only. The other averment may be considered as not conclusive, but as to this one we have the fact of shortage of weight so specificially averred as to not warrant the court in entering a summary judgment for the whole claim, and to this extent the judgment should be reversed. A later rule was entered for judgment for the amount as to which the affidavit is insufficient, and this, from the record, does not appear to have been disposed of. As this appeal is presented we consider only the general rule, and on authority of Armstrong v. Descalzi, 48 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, and authorities therein cited; and Noble v. Erwin, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 72.

The judgment is reversed, with a procedendo.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The plaintiff brought suit to recover a balance alleged to he due on three shipments of salt, as specified in an exhibit attached to his statement. On a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense the court entered a judgment for the amount claimed to be due. In the original and supplemental affidavit of defense, which are to be taken together, there was a distinct and specific denial of the delivery of the ninety tons of salt, and an admission of delivery and acceptance of eighty-five tons only. The other averment may be considered as not conclusive, but as to this one we have the fact of shortage of weight so specificially averred as to not warrant the court in entering a summary judgment for the whole claim, and to this extent the judgment should be reversed. A later rule was entered for judgment for the amount as to which the affidavit is insufficient, and this, from the record, does not appear to have been disposed of. As this appeal is presented we consider only the general rule, and on authority of Armstrong v. Descalzi, 48 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, and authorities therein cited; and Noble v. Erwin, 50 Pa. Superior Ct. 72.

The judgment is reversed, with a procedendo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Pa. Super. 312, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-carrigan-pasuperct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack