153 A. 553 | Pa. | 1930
In this action based on a surety bond, it is evident from appellants' own statements that the questions involved are of such nature as to require submission to a jury. The court below properly refused both an original motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense and a motion for judgment for want of a sufficient reply to new matter filed in addition to the original affidavit of defense. The opinion filed by the court below, which sat in banc to hear argument on the motion for judgment, states that "the court thinks this is not a case where any judgment should be *331 given on the pleadings. The amount in suit is upwards of $68,000, the facts are extremely complicated, the defense is based on allegations of fraud, which, in general . . . . . . are denied by plaintiff, and it is the kind of a case which can be developed only by a complete hearing of the testimony and of all the facts in connection with the transactions involved." The record before us amply sustains this conclusion.
This court has held on numerous occasions that an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed except in such cases are are "clear and free from doubt": Goodrich Rubber Co. v. Motor Tire Corp.,
The order appealed from is affirmed.