Kaercher v. Rudolph
This text of 8 Pa. D. & C. 60 (Kaercher v. Rudolph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
A pleading may be struck from the record only when it does not conform to the provision of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, § 21, P. L. 483. But the reasons assigned in support of this motion refer to the substance instead of the form of the statement of claim. In general, the objections raised to the statement amount to this, that the statement is not sufficiently specific, or that it is not self-sustaining. When a statement is not sufficiently specific a rule to show cause why it should not be made more specific may be taken: Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397. Or, if the statement be not self-sustaining, an affidavit of defence raising a question of law may be filed.
The motion is overruled.
From M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Pa. D. & C. 60, 1926 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaercher-v-rudolph-pactcomplschuyl-1926.