Smyth v. Miller

Citations

• 174 Pa. 639
• 34 A. 210
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 941

Syllabus

<p>Attachment under act of March 17, 1869 — Affidavit of defense — Practice, C. P.</p> <p>The act of the court in discharging a rule to dissolve an attachment under the act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, cannot in any way impair the oiiicacy of the affidavit of defense. The attachment is merely part of the process to secure the alleged fraudulently contracted debt in advance of obtaining judgment for the amount thereof; and, whether the attachment is dissolved or not, it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to establish their claim against the defendant.</p> <p>In an action of assumpsit to recover the price of several lots of goods sold and delivered on credits of sixty days, an affidavit of defense is sufcient, which avers, that so far as the goods were not paid for, the term of credit of neither purchase had expired when suit was brought.</p> <p>In such a case affidavits procured by plaintiffs and used in opposition to a rule to dissolve an attachment under the act of March 17, 1869, P. L. 8, cannot be resorted to for the purpose of disproving or nullifying the averments of the affidavits of defense that neither of the items of plaintiffs’ claims was due and payable when suit was brought.</p>