Dikeman v. Butterfield

19 A. 938, 135 Pa. 236, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1177
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 19, 1890·No. No. 17·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

There was no application in the court below to open this judgment. There was a rule to show cause why it should not be stricken off, which was very properly refused, as the judgment was regular upon its face. If there was any defence, the proper practice was to apply for a rule to open the judgment. This, in case of a legal defence, would have afforded relief in the court below, although in such case no appeal would lie to this court upon a refusal to open: See Limbert’s App., 118 Pa. 589, and Swartz’s App., 119 Pa. 208. As the case stands, there was nothing upon the face of the record, nor does anything appear aliunde which would have justified the court below in striking off the judgment, and the order is

Affirmed.

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

Dikeman v. Butterfield, 19 A. 938, 135 Pa. 236, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1177 (Pa. 1890).

19 A. 938 (Dikeman v. Butterfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miles v. Layton
193 A. 567 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1937)
Rochester & Pittsburgh C. & I. Co. v. Maydock
7 Pa. D. & C. 312 (Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
Dalton v. Willingmyre
60 Pa. Super. 225 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1915)
Penna. Co. for Insurance on Lives & Granting Annuities ex rel. McCarroll v. Shanahan
10 Pa. Super. 267 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)