Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Pa. 642

Emig v. Spatz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 31, 1893

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1893-05-31

Appeal, No. 27, July. T., 1893, by plaintiffs, Clayton E. Emig & Co., from order of C. P.York Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 39, discharging rule for judgment against defendants, Jacob F. Spatz et al. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, in assumpsit on contract.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1926

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-05-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Curiam,

¶1The only assignment of error is the refusal of the court to enter judgment against defendants for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.

¶2We have examined the statement of claim, based upon the written contract between plaintiffs and defendants, wherein the former agree to drill for the latter certain wells for the purpose of supplying reservoirs, etc., and also the original and supplemental affidavits of defence thereto, and are not by any means convinced that there was any error in denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the costs of the appellants without prejudice, etc.

/155/pa/642 · .json · Public domain