Opinion
January 7, 1925.
January 26, 1925.
Appeals — Order refusing judgment — Affidavit of defense.
An appeal from an order refusing to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will be dismissed, where the appellate court cannot say, after considering the statement and affidavit of defense, that the refusal is free and clear from doubt.
Appeal, No. 223, Jan. T., 1925, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1924, No. 8219, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Harvey G. Snyder v. Jacob M. Baer.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ. Affirmed.
Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Before McMICHAEL, P. J., and DAVIS, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Rule discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was order, quoting record.
J. Rech Guckes, with him J. F. Shrader and H. B. Gill, for appellant.
Roy Martin Boyd, for appellee.
Argued January 7, 1925.
This is an appeal from the refusal to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. After reading the statement of claim, the affidavit, and the amendment thereto, we cannot say it is "clear and free from doubt" that the court below erred in the order complained of; and, following the usual course (Brown v. Unger, 269 Pa. 471, 472; Mancia v. Marquette N. Fire Ins., 280 Pa. 174, 176), we shall not discuss the facts or the applicable rules of law until called upon so to do after an opportunity is had to develop the former at trial. See Girsh v. Rolland, 282 Pa. 327, decided contemporaneously herewith.
The appeal is dismissed.