
    Yerger-Hagan, Appellant, v. Biddle.
    Practice, O. P. — Affidavit of defense — Professional services.
    
    In an action by an attorney-at-law to recover for professional services, a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is properly discharged, where an examination of both statement of claim and affidavit of defense shows that the latter denies the averments of the former in its material parts with such reasonable certainty as to take the case to the jury.
    Argued January 20, 1922.
    Appeal, No. 235, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1921, No. 8423, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of A. Florence Yerger-Hagan v. Anthony J. Drexel-Biddle.
    Before Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart and Sohapeer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for professional legal services.
    Buie for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    
      The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Buie discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned, inter alia, was above order.
    
      Francis O. Menamin, for appellant.
    
      Buckman & Buckman and George Wharton Pepper, for appellee.
    February 6, 1922:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, a member of the Bar of Philadelphia, sued to recover for professional services claimed to have been rendered defendant. A rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense having been discharged by the court below, plaintiff appealed. An examination of both statement of claim and affidavit of defense shows that the latter denies the averments contained in the former in its material parts with such reasonable certainty as to take the case to the jury.

The court below was not in error in its conclusion and the judgment is affirmed.  