King v. Security Co.

Citations

• 241 Pa. 547
• 88 A. 789
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 815

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Service of process — Surety companies — Act of March 22,1911, P. L. 23 — Statutes—Retroactive statutes — Assumpsit — Affidavit of defense — Insufficient averments.</p> <p>1. In an action of assumpsit to recover from a surety company the amount of a bond given by defendant to secure the faithful performance by a third party of a contract to furnish labor and materials, where the home office of defendant was located in a different county from the county in which the action was brought, and defendant was served under the provisions of the Act of March 22, 1911, P. L. 23, providing that in such cases the sheriff of defendant’s county may be deputized to serve defendant, the court did not err in refusing to set aside the service although defendant had given the bond before the act was passed.</p> <p>2. There is no vested right in any course of procedure; a party has only the right of prosecution or defense in the manner prescribed for the time being by or for the court in which he sues.</p> <p>3. Where the affidavit of defense in such action contained nothing but a general denial that the contractors had broken their contract so as to render defendant liable, and stated no facts which constituted an adequate defense, judgment was properly entered for plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.</p>