Case ID: pa-super_34/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Orlady, J., \n      Morrison, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gandy v. Pinkerton, Appellant.
    October 7, 1907:
    Argued Dec. 13, 1906.
    Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1906, hy defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 860, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George S. Gandy v. William W. Pinkerton.
    Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orladv, Head and Beaver, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Samuel P. Tull, for appellant.
    
      W. P. Rambo, with him Ormond Rambo, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

In an opinion filed tiiis day in Gandy v. Weckerly, ante, p. 79, the question involved in this case is disposed of, and inasmuch as the affidavit in that case is more adequate in its statement of the defense, it is not necessary to repeat what is therein said.

The judgment is affirmed.

Morrison, J.,

dissenting:'

This case does not materially differ from Gandy v. Weckerly, ante, p. 79, in which I have this day filed a dissenting opinion, and for the reasons there stated, I would reverse the judgment in this case with procedendo.

Head and Beaver, JJ., concur in this dissent.