Case ID: pa_328/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stanley Company of America v. Forum Amusement Company, Appellant.
    Argued December 3,1937.
    Before Schaffer, Máxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
    
      Joseph K. Willing, of Sterling & Willing, with him Elias Magil, for appellant.
    
      D. Benjamin Kresch, with him Nathan Silberstein and Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, for appellee.
    January 3, 1938:
   Per Curiam,

This action is in assumpsit to recover on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff. Defendant counterclaimed upon a written lease and averred that plaintiff had failed to pay the rent in full. A reply was filed to the counterclaim in which it was set up that the defendant had voluntarily granted plaintiff a reduction in rent and had accepted as payment in full the reduced sum. Defendant filed a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient reply. The court below refused to enter judgment, stating in its opinion that the reply to the counterclaim raised questions of fact which should be submitted to a jury.

Our examination of the record shows this not to be such a clear case as warrants summary judgment. It is only in clear cases that we will reverse for a refusal to summarily dispose of a controversy: Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 116 A. 364; Aultman v. Pittsburgh, 326 Pa. 213, 192 A. 112.

Order affirmed.