Irwill Knitwear Corp. v. WEXLER

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Irwill Knitwear Corp. v. WEXLER

323 A.2d 23, 229 Pa. Super. 48, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2147

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 21, 1974

DocketAppeal, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 323 A.2d 23 (Irwill Knitwear Corp. v. WEXLER) 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

Irwill Knitwear Corp. v. WEXLER, 323 A.2d 23, 229 Pa. Super. 48, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2147 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

This case concerns the power of the prothonotary to enter a judgment for an amount admitted to be due by a defendant’s pleadings under Rule 1037(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appellee sued in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered to appellants. The complaint set forth credits for certain payments and claimed a balance due of $12,-115.00. In their answer, appellants admitted they received the goods, but in their new matter claimed additional credits for payments and overcharges totaling $6,840.22. They concluded their new matter with the following paragraph: “9. The difference between the sum demanded according to plaintiff invoices and the amount properly owing by the defendants is Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-four Dollars Seventy-five Cents ($5,274.75) which sum defendants have at all times material herein offered to plaintiff in full settlement of their account.” Upon receipt of the answer and new matter, the plaintiff directed the prothonotary to enter judgment for the admitted sum due of $5,274.75 with interest, and with leave to plaintiff to proceed for the balance of the claim in the amount of $6,840.25. [50]*50Appellants moved to strike the partial judgment, which the lower court refused to do.

In refusing to strike, the lower court found that appellants clearly and unequivocally admit in their answer and new matter that there is due and owing to appellee the sum of $5,27475. This, the court found “after close scrutiny of Paragraph Nine (9) of defendants’ Answer and New Matter.” While we are inclined to agree with the lower court that appellants do admit owing $5,27475, we, like the lower court, can only arrive at such conclusion after carefully examining and interpreting the answer and new matter. However, that was not the function of the prothonotary, whose duties are purely ministerial. Phillips v. Evans, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 65 A.2d 423 (1949). To support a judgment entered by the prothonotary, the admission must be plain and unconditional. Cain v. Redlich, 310 Pa. 68, 164 A. 794 (1933); Domenick v. Connelly, 15 Chest. 33 (1966). As was said in 1 Goodrich-Amram §1037 (b)-3 (1957): “If there is an ‘admission’ claimed by the plaintiff, because the defendant’s answer is inadequate, and if this will require an analysis and interpretation of the pleadings by the prothonotary, the situation is beyond the scope of Rule 1037(b).”

Paragraph 9 of the answer’s new matter is far from clear. It states that the difference between the sum demanded and the amount properly owing is $5,27475. If that were correct, the amount properly owing must be $12,115.00 minus $5,274.75 or $6,840.25. However, an examination of the answer shows that $6,840.25 is approximately what appellants assert as credits against the claim. Thus paragraph 9 alone does not clearly and exactly set forth what appellants admit to be due and the amount can be obtained only by a review and interpretation of the entire answer. Such action was beyond the power of the prothonotary.

Order reversed and judgment stricken.

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

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

This case concerns the power of the prothonotary to enter a judgment for an amount admitted to be due by a defendant’s pleadings under Rule 1037(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appellee sued in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered to appellants. The complaint set forth credits for certain payments and claimed a balance due of $12,-115.00. In their answer, appellants admitted they received the goods, but in their new matter claimed additional credits for payments and overcharges totaling $6,840.22. They concluded their new matter with the following paragraph: “9. The difference between the sum demanded according to plaintiff invoices and the amount properly owing by the defendants is Five Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-four Dollars Seventy-five Cents ($5,274.75) which sum defendants have at all times material herein offered to plaintiff in full settlement of their account.” Upon receipt of the answer and new matter, the plaintiff directed the prothonotary to enter judgment for the admitted sum due of $5,274.75 with interest, and with leave to plaintiff to proceed for the balance of the claim in the amount of $6,840.25. [50]*50Appellants moved to strike the partial judgment, which the lower court refused to do.

In refusing to strike, the lower court found that appellants clearly and unequivocally admit in their answer and new matter that there is due and owing to appellee the sum of $5,27475. This, the court found “after close scrutiny of Paragraph Nine (9) of defendants’ Answer and New Matter.” While we are inclined to agree with the lower court that appellants do admit owing $5,27475, we, like the lower court, can only arrive at such conclusion after carefully examining and interpreting the answer and new matter. However, that was not the function of the prothonotary, whose duties are purely ministerial. Phillips v. Evans, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 65 A.2d 423 (1949). To support a judgment entered by the prothonotary, the admission must be plain and unconditional. Cain v. Redlich, 310 Pa. 68, 164 A. 794 (1933); Domenick v. Connelly, 15 Chest. 33 (1966). As was said in 1 Goodrich-Amram §1037 (b)-3 (1957): “If there is an ‘admission’ claimed by the plaintiff, because the defendant’s answer is inadequate, and if this will require an analysis and interpretation of the pleadings by the prothonotary, the situation is beyond the scope of Rule 1037(b).”

Paragraph 9 of the answer’s new matter is far from clear. It states that the difference between the sum demanded and the amount properly owing is $5,27475. If that were correct, the amount properly owing must be $12,115.00 minus $5,274.75 or $6,840.25. However, an examination of the answer shows that $6,840.25 is approximately what appellants assert as credits against the claim. Thus paragraph 9 alone does not clearly and exactly set forth what appellants admit to be due and the amount can be obtained only by a review and interpretation of the entire answer. Such action was beyond the power of the prothonotary.

Order reversed and judgment stricken.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 A.2d 23, 229 Pa. Super. 48, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwill-knitwear-corp-v-wexler-pasuperct-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack