Twining v. Roberts

Citations

• 16 Pa. Super. 4
• 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2

Syllabus

<p>Affidavit of defense — Contract—Insufficient averments.</p> <p>In an action upon a contract in writing for the delivery of stone, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which avers that at the time the contract was made, the treasurer and manager of the plaintiff company “ undertook to furnish the said stone and make full delivery thereof by July 1, 1899,” when it appears that the contract called for the delivery of the stone without delay; and there is no allegation that the treasurer and manager as such executed the written agreement, or that he had power to bind the company either in writing or by the alleged parol agreement.</p> <p>Affidavit of defense — Delay in delivery — ■Insufficient averments.</p> <p>In an action upon a written contract for the delivery of stone in which the time in which the stone was to be furnished, and the penalty for failure are in blank, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which alleges that by reason of the delay in delivering the stone, the defendant was not able to comply with his contract with a third party and was subjected to damages to such party, where there is no averment that the provisions of such contract were ever communicated to the plaintiff, nor that the third party had enforced or attempted to enforce, or had even demanded any damages.</p>