Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 18, 1901

Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle, 198 Pa. 388 (Pa. 1901)

48 A. 272; 1901 Pa. LEXIS 796

Brown, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Pell, Potter

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This is an action of assumpsit in which the plaintiffs obtained *390a rule for judgment to the amount of $1,850. Upon due consideration by the court the rule was discharged. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court alleging that the affidavit of defense is insufficient. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed by the Supreme Court in doubtful and uncertain cases, but only such as are very clear and free of doubt: Ensign et al. to use of Paine v. Kindred, 163 Pa. 638. In Ætna Ins. Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 604, it was said, “ It must be a very plain case of error in law, if we sustain appeals in such cases from the decree of the common pleas discharging the rule.” The case at bar is within the rule established by the above cases.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Kidder Elevator Interlock Company v. Muckle
Cited By: 22 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Practice, O. P.—Affidavit of defense—Appeal from order discharging rule. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed by the Supreme Court in doubtful and uncertain eases, but only in such as are very clear and free of doubt. In an fiction upon a contract to pay royalties on a patent where the contract provides that the defendants may assign it to a corporation organized by them, an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that the contract had been assigned to a corporation with plaintiff’s approval and consent, and that the work on which royalties were claimed had been done by the corporation and not by defendants.