Baker Loan & Trust Co. v. Diehl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Baker Loan & Trust Co. v. Diehl, 253 Pa. 353 (Pa. 1916)
98 A. 645; 1916 Pa. LEXIS 840
Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Stewart, Walling
Baker Loan & Trust Co. v. Diehl
Opinion of the Court
The averments in the affidavit of defense and in the supplement thereto as to the agreement, upon the faith of which the original note and the one in suit were made and delivered to this appellant, were sufficient to prevent the entry of judgment. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, under which this appeal was taken, was intended to reach only cases of clear error in law in refusing judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense: Ætna Ins. Co. v. Confer, 158 Pa. 598; Ensign, et al., v. Kindred, 163 Pa. 638; Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle, 198 Pa. 388.
Appeal dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Baker Loan and Trust Company v. Diehl
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense — Refusal—Act of April 18, 1871¡, P• L. 64. 1. The Act of April 18, 1874, P. L. 64, authorizing appeals from an order refusing judgment for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was intended to reach only cases of clear error in law. 2. In an action on a promissory note, an affidavit of defense alleging that the note and a previous note of which it was a renewal were given under a parol agreement that they should be paid from funds arising from a source therein referred to, and that plaintiff had been in receipt of funds applicable to the payment of the note, but had not paid the same, is sufficient to prevent summary judgment.