Case Name: Marine City Salt Co., Inc., v. Carrigan, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1917-03-13
Citations: 66 Pa. Super. 27
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 105
Parties: Marine City Salt Co., Inc., v. Carrigan, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
Marine City Salt Co., Inc., v. Carrigan, Appellant.
Affidavit of defense — Goods sold and delivered — Insufficient affidavit.
In an action for goods sold and delivered, an affidavit of defense is’ insufficient which does not deny the correctness of the book entries sued upon, admits that the goods specified were received, aver3 a shortage of weight, but does not specifically state the deficiency, and fails to explain why no claim was made for shortage for more than a year after the goods were shipped.
Submitted Nov. 1, 1916.
Appeal, No. 105, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 1156, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Marine City Salt Co., Inc., v. Thomas J. Carrigan, trading as Somers Salt Co.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Error assigned' was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
R. E. Loche, for appellant.
W. P. Davis, Jr., for appellee.
March 13, 1917:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The affidavit of defense filed in this case is indefinite and evasive. The correctness of the book entries is not denied; it is admitted that the merchandise referred to in the statement of claim was delivered, and while there is an averment that the shipment was short in weight, the deficiency is not accurately set forth. The defendant does'not deny that the bags containing salt were re ceived and retained, and the dates of the admitted payments show that one year and more elapsed after the dates of shipment, during which time no claim was made for shortage in amount, or loss*of the salt bags.
The judgment is affirmed.