Fischer v. Dalmas

Decided January 20, 1896

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-01-20

Appeal, No. 325, Jan. T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 662, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Bulé for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1965

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-01-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,

¶2We are not convinced that the learned court erred in refusing to enter judgment against the defendant for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

¶3Inasmuch as the case goes back for a jury trial, it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss the questions presented by the affidavit of defense. If the plaintiff had been disposed to waive his right of appeal to this court and proceed to trial, he might have had his-case finally disposed of long ago.

¶4Appeal dismissed, at plaintiff’s costs, without prejudice, etc.