
    Philip Haibach Contracting Co., Appellant, v. Hornung.
    
      Appeals—Affidavit of defense—Dismissal of rule for judgment— Review.
    
    
      1. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, will not be reversed, unless the appellate court is convinced that the action of the lower court was clearly erroneous and free from doubt.
    Argued March 29, 1921.
    Appeal, No. 415, Jan. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., June T., 1920, No. 5188, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Philip Haibach Contracting Co. v. Jacob Hornung.
    Before Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kepi-iart and Sadler, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.
    The court discharged the rule, in an opinion by Martin, P. J. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was above order, quoting it.
    
      Fred. W. Breitinger, with him Frederick L. Breitinger, for appellant.
    
      Lorenzo D. Bulette, with him William T. Aldrich, for appellee.
    
      April 18, 1921:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of its rule foi judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. We have frequently held and recently repeated that unless we can say the action of the court in refusing judgment on rules of this character is clearly erroneous and free from doubt, its order will not be disturbed: Brown et al. v. Unger et al., 269 Pa. 471. Testing the pleadings in this case by that rule we are not convinced the action of the court below should be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed.  