Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 Pa. 615

Brooks v. Keller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 17, 1896

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-02-17

Appeal, No. 207, July T., 1895, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1894, No. 886, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on three promissory notes to recover the sum of $35,000. From the pleadings it appeared that the notes in suit had been given in part payment of the purchase by defendant of the interest of plaintiff'in their joint partnership business.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1909

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-02-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1In disposing of appeals from refusal of the court below to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the averments of fact in the affidavit, so far as they are relevant and material, must be accepted as verity. As has been repeatedly said, such rules are in the nature of demurrers to the affidavits of defense. Tested by that principle, we think the defendant's averments of fact, in this case, are sufficient to prevent a summary judgment and thus send the case to a jury. There was, therefore, no error in discharging the rule for judgment. Inasmuch as the case goes back for trial by jury, it is neither necessary nor desirable to discuss questions that may then arise.

¶2Appeal dismissed at plaintiff’s costs, without prejudice, etc., and record remitted for further proceedings.

/173/pa/615 · .json · Public domain