Lee, Holland & Co. v. Taylor
This text of 26 A. 253 (Lee, Holland & Co. v. Taylor) 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
Opinion by
The decision of this case rests on the sufficiency of the affidavit of defence. The plaintiff claimed some twenty thousand dollars for goods sold and delivered to the defendants. The affidavit of defence admitted the receipt of the goods and alleged that they were furnished to the defendants, not as purchasers, but as managers of a business entered upon for the benefit of both parties, and as the contribution to the stock of that business which the plaintiffs had undertaken to make. It further alleged that this stipulation had been omitted from the written contract, entered into by the parties, by mistake. If these allegations are sustained upon the trial by'the sort of evidence necessary to reform a written contract they will make a complete answer to the action. The learned judge of the court below was therefore clearly right in refusing to enter judgment in this case for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
26 A. 253, 154 Pa. 95, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-holland-co-v-taylor-pa-1893.