Steiner Et Ux. v. Gr. Sharon Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Steiner Et Ux. v. Gr. Sharon Realty Co.

140 A. 270, 291 Pa. 187, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 380

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 29, 1927

DocketAppeal, 138

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A. 270 (Steiner Et Ux. v. Gr. Sharon Realty 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

Steiner Et Ux. v. Gr. Sharon Realty Co., 140 A. 270, 291 Pa. 187, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 380 (Pa. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs entered a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, first, for the whole amount of their claim, and, next, for a part of it. The court below discharged the rule and this appeal ensued.

The general principles governing such cases are so well known that it would serve no useful purpose to restate them here; nor would that end be served by detailing the facts or the manner in which they are set forth in the present pleadings. It is sufficient to say that, on appeals from ordérs such as the one now before us, we never reverse unless plaintiff makes it quite clear that, on the statement of claim and affidavit of defense, appellant was undoubtedly entitled to the relief refused by the court below. While, in some particulars, the defense in this case may be evasively averred, yet, on a review of the pleadings as a whole, we cannot say that the court erred in refusing judgment. See opinion in Goodrich R. Co. v. Motor Tire Corp., filed simultaneously herewith.

The order is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs entered a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, first, for the whole amount of their claim, and, next, for a part of it. The court below discharged the rule and this appeal ensued.

The general principles governing such cases are so well known that it would serve no useful purpose to restate them here; nor would that end be served by detailing the facts or the manner in which they are set forth in the present pleadings. It is sufficient to say that, on appeals from ordérs such as the one now before us, we never reverse unless plaintiff makes it quite clear that, on the statement of claim and affidavit of defense, appellant was undoubtedly entitled to the relief refused by the court below. While, in some particulars, the defense in this case may be evasively averred, yet, on a review of the pleadings as a whole, we cannot say that the court erred in refusing judgment. See opinion in Goodrich R. Co. v. Motor Tire Corp., filed simultaneously herewith.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A. 270, 291 Pa. 187, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steiner-et-ux-v-gr-sharon-realty-co-pa-1927.