Laurel Run Red Stone Co. v. Herrick Construction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Laurel Run Red Stone Co. v. Herrick Construction Co.

98 A. 878, 254 Pa. 207, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 706

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 23, 1916

DocketAppeal, No. 27

StatusPublished

This text of 98 A. 878 (Laurel Run Red Stone Co. v. Herrick Construction Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Laurel Run Red Stone Co. v. Herrick Construction Co., 98 A. 878, 254 Pa. 207, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 706 (Pa. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this case the court below was of opinion that the affidavits of defense filed to the original statement of claim were evasive and insufficient; but as an amended statement of claim was filed, the court held that the complete new statement had the effect of a first statement, filed after the return day, and that fifteen days after notice thereof the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant in case of failure to file an affidavit of defense. The propriety of this rule as adopted by the court below cannot be questioned. It was here found as a fact, that counsel for defendant had notice of the filing of the amended statement, and that he failed to file an affidavit of defense thereto. Judgment was, therefore, properly entered for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In this case the court below was of opinion that the affidavits of defense filed to the original statement of claim were evasive and insufficient; but as an amended statement of claim was filed, the court held that the complete new statement had the effect of a first statement, filed after the return day, and that fifteen days after notice thereof the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant in case of failure to file an affidavit of defense. The propriety of this rule as adopted by the court below cannot be questioned. It was here found as a fact, that counsel for defendant had notice of the filing of the amended statement, and that he failed to file an affidavit of defense thereto. Judgment was, therefore, properly entered for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 878, 254 Pa. 207, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurel-run-red-stone-co-v-herrick-construction-co-pa-1916.