Case ID: pa_291/html/0591-01.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

Yentis, Appellant, v. Mills.
    
      Appeals — Refusal of judgment — Affidavit of defense.
    
    An order refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, will not be reversed where the record does not clearly show plain error of law.
    Argued January 4, 1928.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 105, J an. T., 1928, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1927, No. 14820, refusing judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Herbert Yentis v. George D. Mills.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Lewis, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      January 23, 1928:
    
      Charles L. Smyth, for appellant.
    
      James C. Crumlish and Hamilton C. Connor, for appellee, were not heard.
   Per Curiam,

The court below refuged to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and this appeal followed. We have repeatedly said that the record must clearly show plain error of law before we will sustain such an appeal (Federal Sales Co. v. Farrell, 264 Pa. 149, 153; Goodrich Rubber Co. v. Motor Tire Corporation, 291 Pa. 185), and this is not a case of that kind.

The order of the court below is affirmed.