
    WOLCOTT vs. SCHWARZ.
    An affidavit of defence should be specific and leave nothing to inference.
    Where a man accepts the services of another, the law implies a, promise to pay for them.
    Error to Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County; No. 48 January Term, 1882.
    This was an action on the case for services as nurse rendered to plaintiff, for twelve weeks at $10 per week. A copy of the account being twelve items of $10 each dated from July 5th to Sept. 20, 1880, was filed; and defendant filed two affidavits of defense which were as follows :
    Robert Wolcott, the defendant above named, being duly sworn, says that he has a just and complete defense to the-above claim of the nature following.
    1. He denies that the plaintiff, Anne S. Schwarz, ever acted in the capacity of a nurse to him.
    2. That the said plaintiff lived in the house adjoining the-defendant's and such attention as she gave to the defendant was purely voluntary and such as a neighbor would naturally give without solicitation.
    
      3. That he never contracted with the said plaintiff, nor with any other person in her behalf that she should perform the duties which constitute the grounds of her claim.
    4. The defendant is advised that the copy filed, called “a copy of the plaintiff’s book of original entries,” is not such a copy as will entitle the plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defense.
    All of which the defendant avers to be true and expects to be able to prove at the trial of the cause.
    Robert Wolcott, the defendant above named, being duly sworn, says that he has a just and complete defense to the above claim of the nature following, namely :
    1. I deny that the plaintiff, Anne S. Schwarz, ever acted in the capacity of a nurse to me.
    2. The plaintiff lived in the house adjoining my own, and such attention as she gave to me was purely voluntary, and such as a neighbor would naturally give without solicitation.
    3. Grateful for such attention, while holding myself under no legal obligation for it, I have directed the trustee named in a deed of trust, executed by me on the 14th December, A. D., 1880, and recorded in Deed Book L W, No. 131, p. 317, etc., in the office for recording deeds in the county of Philadelphia, which deed I produce for the inspection of court, to pay to the said plaintiff, upon my decease, the sum of fifty dollars.
    4. I never contracted with the said plaintiff, nor with any other person in her behalf, that she should perform the duties which constitute the grounds of her claim.
    5. The charges of the plaintiff are excessive and unusual for the duties alleged fohave been performed.
    6. I am advised that the copy filed, called “a copy of the plaintiff’s book of original entries,” is not such a copy as will entitle the plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidivit of defense.
    All of which I aver to be true and expect to be able to prove at the trial of the case.
    
      The Court granted judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Wolcott then took this writ of error complaining of the entry of judgment.
    
      Theodore Barrett, Esq., for plaintiff in error, cited :
    Moeck vs. Littell, 82 Pa., 354; Bronson vs. Silverman, 77 Pa., 94; Hugg vs. Scott, 6 Wh., 274; Thompson vs. Clark, 56 Pa., 33; Liebersperger vs. Bank, 30 Pa., 531; Hale’s Ex. vs. Ard’s Ex., 48 Pa., 22; Harbison vs. Hawkins, 32 Sm. 142.
    
      John H. Sloan, Esq., contra, cited :
    Keys vs. Erwin, 4 W. N. C., 382; Yearsley’s Appeal, 48 Pa., 531.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on January 30, 1882, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

The affidavits of defense are evasive and insufficient. The copy of book account filed shows the claim to be for nursing the plaintiff in error in his sickness. While the affidavits deny the defendant in error “ever acted in the capacity of a nurse to him,” yet they are very careful not to deny that she nursed him. It matters not that he did not contract with her to perform such duties. If she rendered the services named, the law implies an obligation on his part to pay for them. His averment that the charges are excessive for such services is too general. He does not aver what part or portion of the charge is excessive.

Judgment affirmed.  