Case Name: Gallinger versus Hoon et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1854
Citations: 1 Grant 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gallinger versus Hoon et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Grant)
Volume: 1
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Gallinger versus Hoon et al.
1. An affidavit by defendant that he is not indebted to the plaintiff, in any sum whatever — that he is confident that he can show plaintiff’s account to be incorrect, and that he thinks he can show that money was deposited which was not credited — is sufficient to prevent judgment, for want of an affidavit of defence.
Error to the District Court of Allegheny county.
This was a suit brought by the defendants in error, against Gallinger, to recover the balance alleged to be due on his bank account. . The plaintiffs were bankers and exchange brokers. They filed an account, the last item of which was one hundred dollars, charged May 10, 1851. 'This suit was brought May 12, 1855, for a balance of $130.71.
The defendant filed the following affidavit of defence : — u That he has, as he verily believes, a full and valid defence to the whole of the plaintiffs’ claim for which this suit is brought, and that he is not indebted to the plaintiffs in any sum whatever. This affiant kept an account with plaintiffs, who were brokers, for some time prior to April 1,1851, but has had no dealings (i. e., depositing) with them since that time; that he kept a bank book, (which he, however, has been unable to find,) in which his deposit account was contained, and that by it he is confident he can show the account filed by the plaintiffs to be incorrect, and that he is not indebted to them in any sum whatever. He denies the correctness of the account filed, and thinks that some money deposited before April, 1851, by him, has been omitted to be credited. The plaintiffs never claimed anything of him since he ceased depositing with them, until about the beginning of April, 1855, four years after he discontinued depositing with them. Affiant expects to be able to find the original bank book.”
The court below entered judgment for the plaintiffs, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, which was assigned for error.
C. Shaler, for plaintiff in error.
M‘Candless, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
— The plaintiffs below file an affidavit of their claim, consisting of an account of the defendant's dealings with them as bankers, showing a balance of $> 106 due to them without interest, the last item being a charge of f 104, May 10, 1851. The defendant files an affidavit that he is not indebted to the plaintiffs in any sum whatever; that he is confident he can show the account to be incorrect, and that he owes ,the plaintiffs nothing ; that he thinks he can show that some money deposited was omitted to be credited, and adds that no claim was made on him for any balance until April, 1855. The court thought that the affidavit was insufficient, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
In this there was error. The affidavit of defence does sufficiently show the nature and character of the defence which is relied on, and it is a full defence if made out; and we think the defendant is entitled to a trial.
Judgment reversed, and a procedendo awarded.