Case ID: pa_153/html/0577-01.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

Pennock, Adm’r, v. Kennedy, Appellant.
    
      Affidavit of defence — Suit on hand for dowei — Assignment.
    In an action on a bond to secure the payment of the principal of dower after the death of the widow, an affidavit of defence is insufficient which avers that defendant “ believes he never signed said bond, nor authorized anyone to do so; ” and that plaintiff’s intestate had sold and assigned all his interest in the estate of his father, and had “ agreed to relinquish all future rights to any part of his mother’s dower.”
    Argued Feb. 8, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 12, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, Ebenezer F. Kennedy, from order of C. P. Chester Co., Aug. T., 1892, No. 12, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence, in favor of John S. Pennock, administrator of John S. Kennedy, deceased.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, McCollum, Mitchell and Dean, JJ.
    Assumpsit on bond to secure payment of principal of dower after death of widow.
    The affidavit of defence was as follows:
    “ Deponent believes he never signed said bond nor authorized anyone to do so.
    “ Thp said John S. Kennedy sold and assigned all his interest, in and to the estates of James Kennedy his father, and Alcanzer J. Kennedy his brother, on or about the time the said John S. Kennedy moved to the state of Maryland in the spring of 1867. That by a family settlement, on or about said time, the said John S. Kennedy agreed to relinquish all future rights to any part of his mother’s dower; that said bond on its face shows that it was given for the purpose of securing to the said John S. Kennedy a portion of said dower, all of which said portion has been since the date of said bond sold and assigned to the other heirs of James Kennedy deceased, the father of said deponent, who now owns the whole of his said father’s estate by various agreements and conveyances.”
    February 20, 1893 :
    The court, Waddell, P. J., made absolute a rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.
    
      Error assigned was order of court as above.
    
      W. S. Harris, for appellant,
    cited, Lash v. Von Neida, 109 Pa. 207; Church v. Jones, 132 Pa. 462; Knerr v. Bradley, 105 Pa. 190; Hogg v. Orgill, 34 Pa. 344; Allegheny v. McCaffrey, 131 Pa. 137.
    
      S. D. Ramsey, for appellee,
    not heard, cited: Allen v. Germantown Bank, 10 W. N. 188; Peck v. Jones, 70 Pa. 83; Kaufman v. Cooper Iron Co., 105 Pa. 541; Hiester v. Sehwenck, 1 Woodw. Dec. 287; Markley v. Stevens, 89 Pa. 279; Fox v. Sheldrake, 1 Del. Co. R. 22; McBrier v. Marshall, 126 Pa. 390; Johnson v. Blair, 126 Pa. 426; Heistand v. Williamson, 128 Pa. 122; McKracken v. Congregation, 111 Pa. 106; Kaufman v. Cooper Iron Co., 105 Pa. 541; Gould v. Gage, 118 Pa. 559; Willard v. Reed, 132 Pa. 5; Winsor v. Bank, 81* Pa. 304; Black v. Halstead, 39 Pa. 64; Thompson v. Clark, 56 Pa. 33.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.