-
This action is in assumpsit to recover on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff. Defendant counterclaimed *Page 308 upon a written lease and averred that plaintiff had failed to pay the rent in full. A reply was filed to the counterclaim in which it was set up that the defendant had voluntarily granted plaintiff a reduction in rent and had accepted as payment in full the reduced sum. Defendant filed a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient reply. The court below refused to enter judgment, stating in its opinion that the reply to the counterclaim raised questions of fact which should be submitted to a jury.
Our examination of the record shows this not to be such a clear case as warrants summary judgment. It is only in clear cases that we will reverse for a refusal to summarily dispose of a controversy: Rhodes v. Terheyden,
272 Pa. 397 ,116 A. 364 ;Aultman v. Pittsburgh,326 Pa. 213 ,192 A. 112 .Order affirmed.
Document Info
Docket Number: Appeal, 233
Judges: Schaffer, Máxey, Drew, Linn, Stern, Barnes
Filed Date: 12/3/1937
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024