Moore v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Moore v. Phillips

25 A. 829, 154 Pa. 204, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 869

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 16, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 314

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A. 829 (Moore v. Phillips) 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

Moore v. Phillips, 25 A. 829, 154 Pa. 204, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 869 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

We think judgment was properly entered for want of a suffi[206]*206cient affidavit of defence. The averment in the affidavit that, “ if an appearance was entered by Herbert F. Oddy for your deponent, your deponent had no knowledge of it whatsoever,” is evasive. The defendant does not deny, as he should have done, if the fact be so, that he had not authorized the attorney to enter an appearance for him. He might have authorized him to enter such an appearance, and yet have no actual knowledge that it bad been done.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam,

We think judgment was properly entered for want of a suffi[206]*206cient affidavit of defence. The averment in the affidavit that, “ if an appearance was entered by Herbert F. Oddy for your deponent, your deponent had no knowledge of it whatsoever,” is evasive. The defendant does not deny, as he should have done, if the fact be so, that he had not authorized the attorney to enter an appearance for him. He might have authorized him to enter such an appearance, and yet have no actual knowledge that it bad been done.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 829, 154 Pa. 204, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-phillips-pa-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack