Case ID: pa-super_83/html/0184-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cokely v. Stipp, Appellant.
    
      Affidavit of defense — Insufficiency—Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
    
    In an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, an affidavit of defense which does not deny the receipt of the goods, and contains merely the assertion that the defendant did not order them, will be deemed evasive of, rather than responsive to, the demand, and is not sufficient to prevent judgment.
    Argued March 4, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 21, March T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1923, No. 596, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in the case of B. E. Cokely and J. T. Cokely, trading as B. E. and J. T. Cokely, v. Catharine Stipp.
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on book account. Before Newcomb, J.
    Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    The facts are stated in the following opinion of the court below:
    Assumpsit for the price of various garden seeds alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant from time to time at her instance and request for the respective prices charged to her account as in plaintiff’s statement set forth by copy. The issue now is on the sufficiency of defendant’s answer; and it only need to be said that it amounts to nothing more or less than a general denial of liability.
    That doesn’t meet the requirements of the Practice Act of 1915. Defendant must furnish something more than her personal conclusion on the subject. The plaintiff’s statement traces the goods to her hands by the ordinary process of delivery in course of dealing between a merchant and his customer. That she so received the goods is not denied. She has contented herself with the bald assertion that she did not order them. That must be deemed evasive of, rather than responsive to the demand. As such it can avail nothing.
    Exceptions sustained, and judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of four hundred eleven and 43/100 dollars ($411.43).
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      A. A. Vosburg, for appellant.
    
      G. A. Battenberg, for appellee.
    May 5, 1924:
   Pee Curiam,

This is an appeal from judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense; it is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Newcomb.