Anderson v. Polaszewski

Erie County Court Common Pleas

Anderson v. Polaszewski

52 Pa. D. & C. 659, 1944 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 56

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County

DecidedJuly 7, 1944

Docketno. 213

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Pa. D. & C. 659 (Anderson v. Polaszewski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Polaszewski, 52 Pa. D. & C. 659, 1944 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.,

This matter appears before the court on a petition to strike off a judgment entered to the above term and number on June 29, 1939. A rule to show cause was granted August 28,1941, but the matter was not placed for argument until June 26, 1944. Meanwhile, on May 15,1944, a sci. fa. sur judgment to revive the lien was issued, and an affidavit of defense was filed thereto, relying chiefly oh the motion [660]*660to strike, which had been filed, and a general allegation that there was no money owed.

By way of argument defendant entered into various matters of defense which would be properly before the court on a petition to open judgment, but it is admitted that all proceedings are regular on their face. We, therefore, conclude that any defense which defendants may have can be properly and orderly presented in answer to the sci. fa. to revive the lien.

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

Evans, J.,

This matter appears before the court on a petition to strike off a judgment entered to the above term and number on June 29, 1939. A rule to show cause was granted August 28,1941, but the matter was not placed for argument until June 26, 1944. Meanwhile, on May 15,1944, a sci. fa. sur judgment to revive the lien was issued, and an affidavit of defense was filed thereto, relying chiefly oh the motion [660]*660to strike, which had been filed, and a general allegation that there was no money owed.

By way of argument defendant entered into various matters of defense which would be properly before the court on a petition to open judgment, but it is admitted that all proceedings are regular on their face. We, therefore, conclude that any defense which defendants may have can be properly and orderly presented in answer to the sci. fa. to revive the lien.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Pa. D. & C. 659, 1944 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-polaszewski-pactcomplerie-1944.