Hamer v. Humphreys

2 Miles 28
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
DecidedNovember 19, 1836
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Miles 28 (Hamer v. Humphreys) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamer v. Humphreys, 2 Miles 28 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1836).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The judgment for want of an affidavit of defence is by default, being so designated by the act. Here the plaintiff has chosen to treat the defendant as not in default, not only by [29]*29not moving for judgment, but by asking and obtaining a plea from the defendant, which amount to a waiver of his previous right, under the act, to have judgment. Had the plaintiff moved for judgment, instead of calling on the defendant to plead, the latter, under our rules, might have exhibited such a case as to have been permitted a supplemental affidavit of defence. The act, in giving a right to the plaintiff to have a judgment by default, contemplates a condition of things for which it provides, that is, the plaintiff’s copy of the instrument, &c. on which the suit is brought, and the absence or insufficiency of defendant’s affidavit But here the condition of things is altered by the plaintiff’s own act, and repeated decisions in Pennsylvania have settled that a plaintiff may waive a right or advantage. Such.a waiver is presented in this case.

Rule discharged.

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

Related

Downes v. HODIN
104 A.2d 495 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1954)
Russ Soda Fountain Co. v. Victor Pastry Shoppe, Inc.
190 A. 376 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Thompson v. Donaldson
43 Pa. Super. 585 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Edison General Electric Co. v. Johnstown Electric Light Co.
56 F. 456 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1893)
Superior National Bank v. Stadelman
26 A. 201 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1893)
Duncan v. Bell, Johnston, Jack & Co.
28 Pa. 516 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1857)
Landis v. Kirk
1 Pears. 77 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1854)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Miles 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamer-v-humphreys-pactcomplphilad-1836.