WINDISCH v. F. CAMDEN NAT. BK. T. CO., 306 Pa. 194 (1932)

161 A. 410

Windisch, Appellant, v. First Camden Nat. Bank Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.January 7, 1932.
February 3, 1932.

Appeals — Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense — Discharge of rule — Suit for taxes paid by mortgagee.

1. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed except in a case clear and free from doubt.

Argued January 7, 1932.

Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY and DREW, JJ.

Appeal, No. 369, Jan. T., 1931, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1931, No. 14220, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Reuben Windisch v. First Camden National Bank Trust Company. Affirmed.

Assumpsit for taxes paid by plaintiff. Before TAULANE, P. J.

Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense discharged. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was order, quoting it.

Page 195

H. James Sautter, with him Raymond J. Sicer, for appellant.

Richard Kingsbury Stevens, of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens Denby, for appellee.

PER CURIAM, February 3, 1932:

We are of opinion that this is not a case “clear and free from doubt,” this being so, the order discharging the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is affirmed: Colonial Securities Co. v. Levy et al. (No. 2), 302 Pa. 329, 331; Sharples v. Northampton Trans. Co., 303 Pa. 211, 212; Chelten Avenue Building Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225; Penna. Co. for Insurances, etc., v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44.

The order of the court below is affirmed.