
    Robert Reynolds vs. John C. Fahey.
    
      Assumpsit — Affidavit of Defense — Statute — Practice — Affidavit Must State the Pacts, Not Conclusions of Law.
    
    An affidavit of defense that sets out that the defendant does not owe the amount claimed, but does not state why, so that the Court can judge whether it is a legal defense or not, is insufficient. It should set out, not a conclusion of law, but the facts upon which the conclusion is based.
    
      (February 17, 1903.)
    
    Lore, C. J., and Spruance and Boyce, J. J., sitting.
    
      William, S. miles for plaintiff.
    
      Samuel S. Adams, Jr., for defendant.
    Superior Court, New Castle County,
    February Term, 1903.
    
      Action of Assumpsit
    (No. 124,
    February Term, 1903).
    The defendant filed an affidavit of defense, setting forth, inter alla, “ that he verily believes there is a legal defense to the whole of the cause of action in said suit, the nature and character of which defense is as follows: That the amount claimed to be due on the said book account sued upon in this action, is not owed to the said plaintiff by the said defendant, and no part thereof is due the said plaintiff by the said defendant.”
    miles, for plaintiff, moved for judgment notwithstanding the affidavit of defense, on the ground that the said affidavit was insufficient.
    
      Flag vs. Taylor, 8 Houst., 164; Noble vs. Kreuzkamp, 111 Pa. St., 68; Superior National Bank vs. Statelman, 153 Pa. St., 634.
    
   Lore, C. J.:

The affidavit of defense states a conclusion of law and not the facts upon which such conclusion is based. It sets out that the defendant does not owe the amount but does not state why, so that the Court can judge whether it is a legal defense or not.

Let judgment be entered notwithstanding the affidavit of defense.  