Moore v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Moore v. Phillips

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 16, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 314·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

25 A. 829 (Moore v. Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related