Case ID: pa_245/html/0552-01.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

Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Company v. Armstrong, Appellant.
    
      Pleadings, O. P. — Motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense — Waiver of right.
    
    The right of a plaintiff to move for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is not waived by the entry of a rule on the defendant to file an affidavit of defense and to plead under a rule of court requiring said rules to be taken simultaneously when a statement of claim is filed and the filing of a plea in pursuance thereof.
    Argued April 22, 1914.
    Appeal, No. 265, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P., No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 2992, for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Stephens-Adamson Manufacturing Co., a corporation, v. N. Bruce Armstrong.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Assumpsit against endorser of a bill of exchange. Before Sulzberger, P. J.
    From the record it appeared that the plaintiff in its statement of claim alleged that the defendant was liable as endorser on a bill of exchange accepted by the Armstrong Engineering Company. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense. Subsequently, by leave of court, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim alleging that the defendant was liable as surety for the Armstrong Engineering Company, and in obedience to a rule of court ruled the defendant to file an affidavit of defense and a plea. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense and a plea. The plaintiff then took a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense which was made absolute by the court below, and judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $1,563.29. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in making absolute the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    
      Daniel R. Rothermel, for appellant.
    
      Alfred T. Steinmetz, with him George Wentworth Carr and Robert A. Beggs, Jr., for appellee.
    May 22, 1914:
   Per Curiam,

The statement of the question involved is “Did the plaintiff waive its right to move for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense by entering a rule on the defendant to plead, and plea filed in pursuance thereof?” This question has been decided adversely to the appellant in the recent case of Dreifus v. Logan Iron Co., 245 Pa. 196. It is the only question on which the appellant is entitled to be heard. Lincoln v. Wakefield, 237 Pa. 97; Felin v. Philadelphia, 241 Pa. 164, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.