76 Pa. Super. 276 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1921
Opinion by
The plaintiff filed a statement, in this action of as-sumpsit, averring that it had sold and delivered to the defendant certain goods, at prices stated. The defendant filed an affidavit of defense averring, among other things, that: “Defendant herein, as an agent or representative of the Charter Party, ordered certain goods and merchandise in the amount of $382.50 of the plaintiff, which were sold and delivered to the Charter Party at its headquarters, No. 213 South Broad street, Philadelphia, and were sold on the faith and credit of said Charter Party.” The plaintiff took a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense for the value of the goods, $382.50, which the defendant thus
The defendant did not in his affidavit attempt to explain the meaning of the term “Charter Party.” The affidavit not having alleged that the “Charter Party” was a corporation, the members of which were not individually liable for the debts of the organization, we must assume that it was an unincorporated organization or association, but it cannot, from the affidavit, be ascertained whether it was a religious society, a social club, a political party, or a partnership engaged in some business undertaking. There is nothing in the affidavit from which it could be inferred that the “Charter Party” was a legal entity which could enter into any contract, or authorize an agent to do so, or which had any standing to sue or be sued: McConnell v. The Bank, 146 Pa. 79. The allegation of the affidavit that the goods “were sold and delivered to the Charter Party,” is a conclusion of law, without stating the facts upon which that conclusion is founded. The affidavit is further defective in that it does not allege that the appellant made known to the plaintiff that he (defendant) was acting as an agent in the purchase of the goods. One who seeks to escape liability for goods which he purchases upon the ground that in making the purchase he is acting merely as an agent for others, must disclose the name of the person, or the names of the persons, who are to become legally liable to pay for the property. This affidavit does not disclose who really ought to pay for the goods which this defendant ordered, and the judgment might properly be affirmed upon that ground alone.
The defendant has, in his paper-book, stated that certain citizens of Philadelphia, deeming political conditions to be such as to require the formation of a new political party, had, in September, 1919, preempted the
The judgment is affirmed.