Case ID: pa_289/html/0578-01.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

Philadelphia, Appellant, v. Merchant & Evans Co.
    
      Appeals — Affidavit of defense — Refusal of judgment — Error of law.
    
    1. The appellate court will not reverse an order refusing to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, unless the action of the lower court clearly appears to have been based on a plain error of law.
    Argued April 19, 1927.
    Before Moschziskkr, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schafeer, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 204, Jan. T., 1927, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1922, No. 1724, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of City of Philadelphia v. Merchant & Evans Co.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Martin, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting it.
    
      Israel K. Levy, Assistant City Solicitor, with him J oseph P. Gaffney, City Solicitor, and Bernard J. O’Oonnell, for appellant.
    
      
      T. R. White, of White, Parry, Sehnader & Morris, for appellees.
    May 9, 1927:
   Per Curiam,

The court below refused to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and plaintiff has appealed. Without expressing or intimating any view on the several questions argued in the briefs, it is enough to say that this ease falls within the rule that we do not reverse on appeals from orders such as the one now before us unless the action of the court below clearly appears to be based on a plain error of law; we cannot say this of the present order.

The appeal is dismissed.