Case ID: pa-super_74/html/0123-01.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

McGowan v. Boney, Appellant.
    
      Contracts — Assumpsit—Practice—Insufficient affidavit of defense.
    
    In an action of assumpsit, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which contains an ambiguous statement as to amount of money alleged to have been paid, and does not Set forth the facts with sufficient detail to enable the court to determine whether or not they amount to a defense.
    Argued October 17, 1919.
    Appeal, No. 53, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 387, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in the case of Thomas E. McGowan v. Anna W. Boney.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head and Trexler, JJ.
    Dismissed.
    Assumpsit for work done and material furnished.
    
      Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    The opinion of the Superior Court states tbe case.
    Tbe court entered judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was tbe action of tbe court in making absolute tbe rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    
      Michael J. O’Callaghan, for appellant, cited:
    Murphy v. Taylor, 173 Pa. 317; Andrews v. The Packing Company, 206 Pa. 370; Woodoleum Flooring Company v. Kayser, 45 Pa. Superior Ct. 372.
    
      Edward D. Mitchell, for appellee, cited:
    Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Topliss, 249 Pa. 417; Bair v. Jackson, 59 Pa. Superior Ct. 126; Berko v. Kemper Construction Company, 65 Pa. Superior Ct. 589.
    February 28, 1920:
   Per Curiam,

Tbe court below made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, and tbe defendant brings this appeal alleging as tbe sole error, tbe action of tbe court in making absolute tbe plaintiff’s rule for judgment.

Tbe affidavit is plainly defective. While in a general way it denies tbe contract as set forth in tbe plaintiff’s statement and alleges defective performance of tbe work done, it particularly relies on tbe item as follows: “Amount paid to tbe plaintiff by tbe defendant was 3~3,d§5-” This statement is so ambiguous that it is impossible to interpret this meaning as fixing any payment of any sum of money. For this reason alone, tbe court was warranted in making tbe order complained of. Tbe affidavit of defense should state tbe facts specifically, and with sufficient detail to enable tbe court to say whether or not they amount to a defense; and it is bad for uncertainty when the averment of a fact or of an inference of law from particular facts is not clearly set forth: Superior National Bank v. Stadelman, 153 Pa. 634; Swartz v. The Hist. Pub. Co., 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 407.

Appeal dismissed at costs of appellant and record remitted with direction to enter judgment against defendant for such sums as to right and justice may belong, etc.