Bloom v. Handloff

Decided May 1, 1916

Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1916-05-01

Action in assumpsit by Alfred Bloom, trading as the Merchants’ Sales Company, against Alexander Handloff. On motion for judgment notwithstanding affidavit of defense. Denied. Plaintiff filed with his praecipe an affidavit of demand with copy of book entries, attached, in order to obtain judgment at first term of court under the statute.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1980

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-05-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pennewill, C. J.,

¶1delivering the opinion of the court.

¶2[1, 2] A motion is made for judgment in the above case notwithstanding the affidavit of defense filed, for the following reasons:

¶31. In the caption the case is described as being “No. 15, April Term, A. D. —,” the year not being stated.

¶42. The affidavit does not set out the nature and character of the defense, as the statute requires.

¶53. That the jurat does not show that the affidavit was sworn to and subscribed by the defendant before the notary who attested the jur^it.

¶6The court are of the opinion that the affidavit is sufficient. The second objection is met by the case of Davenport Co. v. Addicks, 5 Penn. 4, 57 Atl. 532. The other objections are tod technical.

¶7Judgment refused.