A. S. & T. Co. v. Schock & Schock

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

A. S. & T. Co. v. Schock & Schock

100 Pa. Super. 84, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 8, 1930

DocketAppeal 266

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 Pa. Super. 84 (A. S. & T. Co. v. Schock & Schock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. S. & T. Co. v. Schock & Schock, 100 Pa. Super. 84, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment was éntered by default for want' of an affidavit of defense. After the term, a petition was presented to the court asking that judgment be opened as to him, alleging that he'was not a member of the firm sued and offering as an. excuse for his failure to enter, an affidavit of defense that he had told his co-defendant about the matter and that he had informed him that the.error of his inclusion in the suit had been corrected.

There was no answer to the petition and the court opened the judgment. It is. very evident that if the unanswered allegations of the petition are correct, and if the judgment were not opened, the petitioner would *86 be required to pay a debt for which he is not liable. The court in its discretion, if in its opinion justice required it, could open the judgment. The only objection offered by the plaintiff is that the court did not have power to do so after the term. The power of the court to open a judgment entered by default after the term is undoubted. New Amsterdam B. & L. Assoc. v. Moyerman, 95 Superior Ct. 47, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

Judgment was éntered by default for want' of an affidavit of defense. After the term, a petition was presented to the court asking that judgment be opened as to him, alleging that he'was not a member of the firm sued and offering as an. excuse for his failure to enter, an affidavit of defense that he had told his co-defendant about the matter and that he had informed him that the.error of his inclusion in the suit had been corrected.

There was no answer to the petition and the court opened the judgment. It is. very evident that if the unanswered allegations of the petition are correct, and if the judgment were not opened, the petitioner would *86 be required to pay a debt for which he is not liable. The court in its discretion, if in its opinion justice required it, could open the judgment. The only objection offered by the plaintiff is that the court did not have power to do so after the term. The power of the court to open a judgment entered by default after the term is undoubted. New Amsterdam B. & L. Assoc. v. Moyerman, 95 Superior Ct. 47, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 Pa. Super. 84, 1930 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-s-t-co-v-schock-schock-pasuperct-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack