History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jenkinson v. Hilands
146 Pa. 380
| Pennsylvania Court of Common P... | 1892
|
Check Treatment
Pee. Curiam:

The affidavit of defence is clearly insufficient. The principal matter averred was a suit and judgment before an aider-man for the same cause of action. But that judgment was reversed upon a certiorari, and is no bar to the present proceedings. The only other material averment is that the goods charged to defendant were “ excessive in amount.” This is too vague. It impliedly admits that some goods were furnished, and if the amount charged was excessive, the defendant should have specified the excess, so that the plaintiff could have judgment for the amount admitted to be due.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Jenkinson v. Hilands
Court Name: Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County
Date Published: Jan 4, 1892
Citation: 146 Pa. 380
Docket Number: No. 125
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.