Beaver Falls Planing Mill Co. v. Whiteside

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 475
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 89

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Affidavit of defense — Promissory note — Set-off—Rule of court.</p> <p>1. In an action upon a promissory note for $300, the affidavit averred that the note “was given as an accommodation to the plaintiff before all of the material which was being supplied for the defendant by the plaintiff had been delivered to the said plaintiff. . . . The plaintiff is indebted to the defendant in the sum of $200 paid to the said plaintiff on May 18,1908, which sum the plaintiff neglected to give the defendant credit for, and which is still owing by the plaintiff to the defendant.” The note in suit was dated April 11,1910. Held, that the affidavit was insufficient, because (1) it left wholly to inference that the note was given for material which the plaintiff was to furnish; (2) it did not set forth the kind, quantity or value of the material, and (3) the averment of a set-off of $200 was a mere conclusion of law unsupported by any allegation of facts.</p> <p>2. Where a rule of court requires the plaintiff upon entering rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense to specify in writing wherein the affidavit is insufficient, a'specification that the affidavit was “vague and uncertain in its terms,” is a sufficient compliance with the rule.</p>