Case Name: Putnam, Appellant, v. United Traction Company of Pittsburgh
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1935-11-25
Citations: 320 Pa. 201
Docket Number: No. 1; Appeal, No. 149
Parties: Putnam, Appellant, v. United Traction Company of Pittsburgh
Judges: Before Frazer, C. J., Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn and Barnes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 320
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Putnam, Appellant, v. United Traction Company of Pittsburgh
(No. 1).
Argued October 10, 1935.
Before Frazer, C. J., Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn and Barnes, JJ.
November 25, 1935:
John M. Reed, for appellant.
Robert L. Kirkpatrick, with him Maynard Teall, E. P. Griffiths and Edwin W. Smith, of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Linn,
This appeal involves the same questions considered and disposed of in Ernest A. Frey v. United Traction Company of Pittsburgh, 320 Pa. 196, with one exception. In the affidavit of defense defendant demands proof of plaintiff's averment of ownership of the bonds, alleging that it has no means of knowledge of this fact. Plaintiff contends that in the absence of averment that defendant has inquired of plaintiff on the subject, the affidavit is insufficient to prevent summary judgment. The Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, section 8, as amended by the Act of June 12, 1931, P. L. 557, makes it unnecessary for a party to aver that he has inquired of the opposite party concerning facts, the proof of which he alleges to be within the exclusive control of the opposite party: Security Trust Co. of Pottstown v. Hubert, 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 418, 425, 169 A. 18. The issue of ownership must be tried by the jury. Accordingly, though not for the reason given by the learned court below, the judgment is affirmed and record remitted for trial.
Again amended by the Act of July 12, 1935, P. L. 666.