Opinion
November 30, 1939.
December 8, 1939.
Practice — Judgments — Sufficiency of affidavit of defense — Inquiry into facts.
Where a case is not free from doubt, and there should be a broad inquiry into the facts, a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will be discharged.
Argued November 30, 1939.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 205, Jan. T., 1939, from order of C. P. Lycoming Co., Sept. T., 1938, No. 123, in case of Automobile Banking Corporation v. Williamsport National Bank. Order affirmed.
Assumpsit.
Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense discharged and motion to strike off new matter denied, opinion by RHONE, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned were the action of the court below in discharging the rule for judgment and denying the motion to strike off new matter.
Thomas O. Haydock, with him Marshall R. Anspach and Albert G. F. Curran, for appellant.
Ira Jewell Williams, with him Ira Jewell Williams, Jr., of Brown Williams, Arthur P. Bretherick, John E. Cupp, John B. Cupp and Clyde E. Williamson, for appellee.
We adopt the opinion of the court below, which concludes: "Because we believe that this case is not free from doubt, and that there should be a broad inquiry into the facts, the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is discharged . . ."
Order affirmed.