Class v. Kingsley
Decision Date | 27 May 1891 |
Docket Number | 208 |
Parties | CHARLES CLASS v. E. F. KINGSLEY ET AL |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 3, 1891
APPEAL BY E. F. KINGSLEY FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
No. 208 January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, number and term not shown.
On August 2, 1890, "Charles Class, trading as the Arctic Hygeia Ice Manufacturing Company," brought assumpsit against "Edward F. Kingsley and W.T. and E. F. Kingsley executors of the will of J. E. Kingsley, deceased, who, with Edward F. Kingsley, traded as J. E. Kingsley & Company," filing on October 30, 1890, a statement of claim to recover the sum of $323.17, for 92,335 lbs. of ice delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant firm from April 1, to May 5, 1890 a copy of the plaintiff's book of original entries being attached.
On November 17, 1890, Edward F. Kingsley filed an affidavit of defence, averring as follows:
On December 18, 1890, said Edward F. Kingsley filed a supplementary affidavit of defence averring:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leechburg Co. v. Jennings Bros. & Co
... ... Butler, 120 Pa. 374; Hebb v ... Insurance Co., 138 Pa. 174; Peck v. Jones, 70 ... Pa. 83; Ogden v. Beatty, 137 Pa. 197; Class v ... Kingsley, 142 Pa. 636; Campbell Co. v. Hering, ... 139 Pa. 473; Philadelphia v. Baker, 140 Pa. 11; ... Kerns v. Piper, 4 W. 222; Hays v ... ...
-
Emmanuel v. Hughes
... ... 53 ... Even if ... any of the averments be construed as relating to matters of ... fact then they are insufficient: Class v. Kingsley, ... 142 Pa. 636; Wright v. Carbonic Co., 271 Pa. 332; ... Moore v. Luzerne Co., 262 Pa. 216; O'Malley ... v. O'Malley, 272 Pa. 528; ... ...
-
Hutton v. McLaughlin
...may be determined by the court, on a motion for judgment based on their alleged insufficiency: Cosgrave v. Hammill, 173 Pa. 207; Class v. Kingsley, 142 Pa. 636. But where, as the original obligation upon which the plaintiff bases his cause of action is expressly traversed, with a specific d......
-
Borough of North Braddock v. Second Ave. Traction Co.
...a defense should be plainly stated in the affidavit so that the court may judge of their legal effect as an answer to the claim: Class v. Kingsley, 142 Pa. 636. second objection to the ordinance that it is vague, indefinite, and that no means is provided in it for reasonably assessing the c......