Lewandowski v. Crawford

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Lewandowski v. Crawford

222 A.2d 601, 208 Pa. Super. 365, 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 850

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 15, 1966

DocketAppeal, 49

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 222 A.2d 601 (Lewandowski v. Crawford) 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

Lewandowski v. Crawford, 222 A.2d 601, 208 Pa. Super. 365, 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 850 (Pa. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered in defendant’s favor on the pleadings.

*366 The action in trespass was commenced by summons. Subsequently a complaint duly endorsed with notice to defendant to answer within twenty days was filed and served. The defendant answered and under new matter set forth a release but did not endorse his pleading with notice to plaintiff to answer the new matter. Within twenty days after this pleading was filed the plaintiff ordered the case on the trial list without filing an answer to the new matter. Three years later defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings because of plaintiff’s failure to deny the release which had been pleaded in the new matter of the answer. After argument the lower court granted the motion. This was error. Failure to endorse a pleading with notice to answer relieves the opposite party of the obligation to file a responsive pleading, and in consequence, no default judgment can be entered against him, R. C. P. 1026; Phillips v. Evans, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 65 A. 2d 423 (1949).

Judgment reversed with a procedendo to trial.

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

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered in defendant’s favor on the pleadings.

*366 The action in trespass was commenced by summons. Subsequently a complaint duly endorsed with notice to defendant to answer within twenty days was filed and served. The defendant answered and under new matter set forth a release but did not endorse his pleading with notice to plaintiff to answer the new matter. Within twenty days after this pleading was filed the plaintiff ordered the case on the trial list without filing an answer to the new matter. Three years later defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings because of plaintiff’s failure to deny the release which had been pleaded in the new matter of the answer. After argument the lower court granted the motion. This was error. Failure to endorse a pleading with notice to answer relieves the opposite party of the obligation to file a responsive pleading, and in consequence, no default judgment can be entered against him, R. C. P. 1026; Phillips v. Evans, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 65 A. 2d 423 (1949).

Judgment reversed with a procedendo to trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.2d 601, 208 Pa. Super. 365, 1966 Pa. Super. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewandowski-v-crawford-pasuperct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack