Hefer v. Hefner and Hefner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hefer v. Hefner and Hefner

95 Pa. Super. 551, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 77

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 4, 1929

DocketAppeal 5

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 95 Pa. Super. 551 (Hefer v. Hefner and Hefner) 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

Hefer v. Hefner and Hefner, 95 Pa. Super. 551, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 77 (Pa. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The matter came before the lower court on an application to strike off a judgment entered on a judgment note. The reason given to move the court was that the praecipe for judgment was signed by some one not a party to the note, and so far as the record discloses “an entire stranger.” The filing of a praecipe was unnecessary. “The holder of a judgment note or other obligation, where there is certainty as to the amount thereof, with warrant of attorney to confess judgment, may take the same to the prothonotary, whose duty it is to enter judgment thereon without requiring the assistance of an attorney”: Deibert v. Rhodes, 291 Pa. 550, 555. The judgment was entered in favor of the original holder, and no irregularity appears in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The matter came before the lower court on an application to strike off a judgment entered on a judgment note. The reason given to move the court was that the praecipe for judgment was signed by some one not a party to the note, and so far as the record discloses “an entire stranger.” The filing of a praecipe was unnecessary. “The holder of a judgment note or other obligation, where there is certainty as to the amount thereof, with warrant of attorney to confess judgment, may take the same to the prothonotary, whose duty it is to enter judgment thereon without requiring the assistance of an attorney”: Deibert v. Rhodes, 291 Pa. 550, 555. The judgment was entered in favor of the original holder, and no irregularity appears in the record.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Pa. Super. 551, 1929 Pa. Super. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hefer-v-hefner-and-hefner-pasuperct-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack