Case Name: HARRIS v. MASON
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1838-10-06
Citations: 2 Miles 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARRIS v. MASON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 2
Pages: 270–270

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. MASON.
October 6, 1838.
Rule to show cause why judgment should not he entered for leant of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
An affidavit of defence, under the act of 28th March, 1835, in an action of covenant, which avers that defendant “ is not conscious of, and does not believe” that he executed the instrument with a seal, is not sufficient.
THIS was an action of covenant against James A. Mason, to September term, 1S38, No. 283. Plaintiff filed a copy of the following promissory note and endorsement thereon, under seal.
“|362 61.
“ Philadelphia, October 90, 1836.
“ Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of T. M. Harris, three hundred and sixty-two dollars, and sixty-one cents, without defalcation, for value received.
(Signed) Joseph Mason.
(Endorsed.)—I agree to see the within note paid, in nine, fifteen, and twenty months from the 18th July, 1837, as witness my hand and seal, this 18th December, 1837.
James A. Mason, [l. s.]”
The defendant filed the following affidavit of defence:
“James A. Mason being duly sworn saith, that he hath a just and true defence to the whole of plaintiff’s claim, the nature and character of which is this,—Deponent is not conscious of ever having executed the endorsement of the note with a seal, and does not believe that he ever did.”
The plaintiff obtained this rule to show cause.
Gerhard, for plaintiff.
Wheeler, for defendant.

Opinion:
Pee. Curiam.—
This affidavit is defective. The averment by defendant, with a view to get in a technical defence as to the form of the action, that he " is. not conscious of, and does not believe," is equivocal.
Rule absolute.