Stanley Co. of America v. Forum Amusement Co.

195 A. 874, 328 Pa. 307, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 416
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 3, 1937·No. Appeal, 233·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action is in assumpsit to recover on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff. Defendant coun *308 terclaimed upon a written lease and averred that plaintiff had failed to pay the rent in full. A reply was filed to the counterclaim in which it was set up that the defendant had voluntarily granted plaintiff a reduction in rent and had accepted as payment in full the reduced sum. Defendant filed a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient reply. The court below refused to enter judgment, stating in its opinion that the reply to the counterclaim raised questions of fact which should be submitted to a jury.

Our examination of the record shows this not to be such a clear case as warrants summary judgment. It is only in clear cases that we will reverse for a refusal to summarily dispose of a controversy: Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 116 A. 364; Aultman v. Pittsburgh, 326 Pa. 213, 192 A. 112.

Order affirmed.

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

Stanley Co. of America v. Forum Amusement Co., 195 A. 874, 328 Pa. 307, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 416 (Pa. 1937).

195 A. 874 (Stanley Co. of America v. Forum Amusement Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aultman v. Pittsburgh
192 A. 112 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Rhodes v. Terheyden
116 A. 364 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)