Tanner v. Van Gelder Yarn Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tanner v. Van Gelder Yarn Co., Inc.

170 A. 282, 314 Pa. 20, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 436

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 3, 1934·No. Appeal, 141·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In this action of assumpsit for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from the discharge of his rule for judgment, on part of his claim, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The questions involved were purely questions of fact, as to which the opinion of the learned court below states: “The defendant has clearly and concisely set forth in its affidavit of defense and new matter facts indicating a prima facie legal defense to the whole of the plaintiff’s claim.” (Italics ours.) Under such circumstances, summary judgment was properly refused: Brannen v. Granite-Silberstein B. & L. Assn., 310 Pa. 278; Coral Gables, Inc., v. MacBroom, 311 Pa. 183.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In this action of assumpsit for breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from the discharge of his rule for judgment, on part of his claim, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The questions involved were purely questions of fact, as to which the opinion of the learned court below states: “The defendant has clearly and concisely set forth in its affidavit of defense and new matter facts indicating a prima facie legal defense to the whole of the plaintiff’s claim.” (Italics ours.) Under such circumstances, summary judgment was properly refused: Brannen v. Granite-Silberstein B. & L. Assn., 310 Pa. 278; Coral Gables, Inc., v. MacBroom, 311 Pa. 183.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

Tanner v. Van Gelder Yarn Co., Inc., 170 A. 282, 314 Pa. 20, 1934 Pa. LEXIS 436 (Pa. 1934).

Pincite

170 A. 282 (Tanner v. Van Gelder Yarn Co., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related