Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle
This text of 48 A. 272 (Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an action of assumpsit in which the plaintiffs obtained [390]*390a rule for judgment to the amount of $1,850. Upon due consideration by the court the rule was discharged. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court alleging that the affidavit of defense is insufficient. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed by the Supreme Court in doubtful and uncertain cases, but only such as are very clear and free of doubt: Ensign et al. to use of Paine v. Kindred, 163 Pa. 638. In Ætna Ins. Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 604, it was said, “ It must be a very plain case of error in law, if we sustain appeals in such cases from the decree of the common pleas discharging the rule.” The case at bar is within the rule established by the above cases.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 A. 272, 198 Pa. 388, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidder-elevator-interlock-co-v-muckle-pa-1901.