Commonwealth v. Owens

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Owens

63 Pa. Super. 111, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 113

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1916

DocketAppeal, No. 12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 Pa. Super. 111 (Commonwealth v. Owens) 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

Commonwealth v. Owens, 63 Pa. Super. 111, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 113 (Pa. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,;

It is not suggested that the judgment which the defendant seeks to have stricken off, is for a wrong amount; against a wrong party, or that there is any defect in the record on which it is founded! The question involved, as presented by the appellant, assumes [113]*113that the judgment which he seeks to have opened is based upon the order of maintenance made by the Quarter Sessions, which was certified to the Common Pleas of the same county, by the clerk of the court of first instance, who is the proper official to certify such orders, as the Act of 1901 does not require the certificate to be made by the court. The entry of the judgment for the specified sum showing dates and amounts of the défault did the defendant no harm, and the alleged irregularity in liquidating the amount instead of entering the judgment for the penal sum stated'in the sentence and recognizance could be corrected in the court below, or in this court if deemed necessary to protect the defendant’s rights.

The order, discharging the rule to strike off the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,;

It is not suggested that the judgment which the defendant seeks to have stricken off, is for a wrong amount; against a wrong party, or that there is any defect in the record on which it is founded! The question involved, as presented by the appellant, assumes [113]*113that the judgment which he seeks to have opened is based upon the order of maintenance made by the Quarter Sessions, which was certified to the Common Pleas of the same county, by the clerk of the court of first instance, who is the proper official to certify such orders, as the Act of 1901 does not require the certificate to be made by the court. The entry of the judgment for the specified sum showing dates and amounts of the défault did the defendant no harm, and the alleged irregularity in liquidating the amount instead of entering the judgment for the penal sum stated'in the sentence and recognizance could be corrected in the court below, or in this court if deemed necessary to protect the defendant’s rights.

The order, discharging the rule to strike off the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Pa. Super. 111, 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-owens-pasuperct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack