Rockwell Manufacturing Co. v. Cambridge Springs Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rockwell Manufacturing Co. v. Cambridge Springs Co.

43 A. 327, 191 Pa. 386, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 830

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 8, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 413

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A. 327 (Rockwell Manufacturing Co. v. Cambridge Springs 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

Rockwell Manufacturing Co. v. Cambridge Springs Co., 43 A. 327, 191 Pa. 386, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 830 (Pa. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

In this case, plaintiff company’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was discharged by the court, and an exception taken as required by the act of April 18,1874, sec. 2. The specifications allege error (1) in discharging the rule, and (2) in not entering judgment, in favor of plaintiff company, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

For reasons given by the learned president of the court below, in his opinion discharging the rule, we think he was quite right in substantially holding that the averments of fact contained in defendant’s affidavits were sufficient to prevent a summary judgment, and thus carry the case to a jury.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed at plaintiff’s costs, but without prejudice to its right to trial by jury, and a second ap- - peal after final judgment.

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

Pee Curiam,

In this case, plaintiff company’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was discharged by the court, and an exception taken as required by the act of April 18,1874, sec. 2. The specifications allege error (1) in discharging the rule, and (2) in not entering judgment, in favor of plaintiff company, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

For reasons given by the learned president of the court below, in his opinion discharging the rule, we think he was quite right in substantially holding that the averments of fact contained in defendant’s affidavits were sufficient to prevent a summary judgment, and thus carry the case to a jury.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed at plaintiff’s costs, but without prejudice to its right to trial by jury, and a second ap- - peal after final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A. 327, 191 Pa. 386, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockwell-manufacturing-co-v-cambridge-springs-co-pa-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack