Jenkinson v. Hilands

Citations

• 146 Pa. 380
• 23 A. 394
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1234

Syllabus

<p>(a) An affidavit of defence to an action for goods sold, etc., averred (1) that a prior judgment for the plaintiff before an alderman, for the same cause of action, was reversed on certiorari, and a judgment for the defendant for costs therein was unsatisfied; and (2) that “the goods charged to the defendant were excessive in amount: ”</p> <p>1. The averment as to the prior judgment, reversed on certiorari, raised no bar to the present action. The other averment, that the goods charged were “ excessive in amount,” was too vague, in that the defendant did not specify the excess, so that the plaintiff could have judgment for the amount admitted to be due.</p>