Case ID: pa_269/html/0471-01.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

Brown et al., Appellants, v. Unger et al.
    
      Appeals — Affidavit of defense — Refusal of judgment — Practioe, Supreme Court.
    
    
      ■ On an appeal from an order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, if the appellate court cannot say that it is clear and free from doubt that the court below erred in refusing the judgment, it will not disturb the order, nor will it discuss the applicable rules of law, till an opportunity is had to fully develop the facts at trial.
    Argued January 31, 1921.
    Appeals, Nos. 91 and 92, Jan. T., 1921, by plaintiffs, from orders of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1919, Nos. 72 and 73, discharging rules for judgment for want of sufficient affidavits of defense, in cases of T. Wistar Brown, 3d, et al., partners, who survive William M. Longstreth, and who with the said William M. Longstreth, were partners, trading as Schell, Longstreth & Co. v. Earl D. Unger et al., trading as Perkiomen Knitting Mills.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Schaefer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Buies for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense. . Before Miller, J.
    
      February 21, 1921:
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    The court discharged the rules. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were orders, quoting them.
    
      Edward M. Biddle, for appellant.
    
      Charles Townley Larzelere, Franklin L. Wright and Nicholas H. Larzelere, for appellees, were not heard.
   Per Curiam,

These two appeals are from orders refusing judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense. After reading the pleadings, and considering the able argument of counsel for appellants, we cannot say it is “clear and free from doubt” that the court below erred in refusing judgment; following the usual course pursued in such cases (Wilson v. Bryn Mawr T. Co., 225 Pa. 143), we shall not disturb the orders appealed from; nor shall we discuss the applicable rules of law, till an opportunity is had to fully develop the facts at trial.

The appeals are dismissed.