
    Moy, Appellant, v. Colonial Finance Corporation.
    Practice, C. P. — Affidavit of defense — Refusal of judgment— Appeals.
    
    An order discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed where the appellate court is not convinced that the court below erred in its conclusion that a proper judicial determination of the controversy would be facilitated by an opportunity for a broader inquiry into the facts than was presented by the bare pleadings.
    Argued October 17, 1923.
    Appeals, Nos. 174 and 175, Oct. T., 1923, by plaintiff, from orders of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1923, Nos. 1203 and 1276, discharging rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense, in cases of Jin Fuey Moy, M.D., v. Colonial Finance Corporations, and Emeric Hadrovich v. Colonial Finance Corporation.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walking, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rules for judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense. Before Ford, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rules discharged. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were, inter alia, orders, quoting record.
    
      M. J. Hosack, for appellant.
    
      A. C. Purdy, of Scott & Purdy, for appellee.
    January 7, 1924:
   Per Curiam,

In these two cases, the court below refused to enter judgments for want of sufficient affidavits of defense, and there followed the instant appeals, which were presented to us as one.

We are not convinced the court below erred in its conclusion that a proper judicial determination of the controversies between the parties would be facilitated by an opportunity for a broader inquiry into the facts than is presented by the bare pleadings; therefore it did not err in discharging plaintiff’s rules: Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 81* Pa. 378; Marquis v. McKay, 216 Pa. 307; Beck v. Schekter, 235 Pa. 253; County Savings Bank v. Gillette, 273 Pa. 262.

The orders appealed from are affirmed.  