Case Name: Stanley Company of America v. Forum Amusement Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1938-01-03
Citations: 328 Pa. 307
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 233
Parties: Stanley Company of America v. Forum Amusement Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schaffer, Máxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 328
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Stanley Company of America v. Forum Amusement Company, Appellant.
Argued December 3,1937.
Before Schaffer, Máxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
Joseph K. Willing, of Sterling & Willing, with him Elias Magil, for appellant.
D. Benjamin Kresch, with him Nathan Silberstein and Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, for appellee.
January 3, 1938:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This action is in assumpsit to recover on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff. Defendant coun terclaimed upon a written lease and averred that plaintiff had failed to pay the rent in full. A reply was filed to the counterclaim in which it was set up that the defendant had voluntarily granted plaintiff a reduction in rent and had accepted as payment in full the reduced sum. Defendant filed a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient reply. The court below refused to enter judgment, stating in its opinion that the reply to the counterclaim raised questions of fact which should be submitted to a jury.
Our examination of the record shows this not to be such a clear case as warrants summary judgment. It is only in clear cases that we will reverse for a refusal to summarily dispose of a controversy: Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 116 A. 364; Aultman v. Pittsburgh, 326 Pa. 213, 192 A. 112.
Order affirmed.