
    Girsh, Appellant, v. Rolland.
    
      Appeals — Rule for judgment — Affidavit of defense — Refusal of judgment.
    
    The appellate court will not reverse an order refusing to enter judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, where such refusal is not manifestly wrong in the sense of being contrary to precedent or established rules of law, and it is not clear and free from doubt that the court below erred.
    Argued January 7, 1925.
    Appeal, No. 199, Jan. T., 1925, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March T., 1924, No. 9070, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Joseph Girsh v. George M. B. Rolland.
    Before Moschziskee, C. J., Fbazee, Walling, Simpson, Sadlee and Schaeeee, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Audenbied, P. J., Finlettee and McCullen, JJ.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      Alvin L. Levi, David Mandel, Jr., and Julius O. Levi, for appellant.
    
      Boy Pressman, for appellee.
    January 26, 1925:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff appeals from the refusal to enter judgment in his favor for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Appellant has not made it plain that the refusal of judgment was “manifestly wrong, in the sense of being contrary to precedent or established rules of law” (Mancia v. Marquette N. Fire Ins. Co., 280 Pa. 174, 176); therefore, it is not “clear and free from doubt that the court below erred,” and, under such circumstances, we never interfere: Brown v. Unger, 269 Pa. 471, 472; see also Snyder v. Baer, 282 Pa. 291, decided contemporaneausly herewith.

The appeal is dismissed.  