Lyon v. Waldron

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lyon v. Waldron

13 Serg. & Rawle 164, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 82

DecidedJune 27, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Serg. & Rawle 164 (Lyon v. Waldron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lyon v. Waldron, 13 Serg. & Rawle 164, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 82 (Pa. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was a scire facias on a judgment, on which judgment was entered by default the first term, without a rule to plead. This is contended to be an error. The defendant’s attorney says, that he appeared to the scire facias, and was therefore entitled to a rule to plead before judgment could be entered against him. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleges that there was no appearance; and on that point the cause turns. The only evidence of an appearance, is the entry of the name of an attorney (Fisher) on the margin of the docket. According to the practice in some courts, this might be sufficient, but we have ascertained, that it is not so, in Mifflin county. It is there required, (and we think it a very prudent regulation,) that an entry of the appearance should be made on the docket. This was not done in the present instance, and therefore the judgment by default (for non-appearance) was regular. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed*

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

Per Curiam.

This was a scire facias on a judgment, on which judgment was entered by default the first term, without a rule to plead. This is contended to be an error. The defendant’s attorney says, that he appeared to the scire facias, and was therefore entitled to a rule to plead before judgment could be entered against him. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleges that there was no appearance; and on that point the cause turns. The only evidence of an appearance, is the entry of the name of an attorney (Fisher) on the margin of the docket. According to the practice in some courts, this might be sufficient, but we have ascertained, that it is not so, in Mifflin county. It is there required, (and we think it a very prudent regulation,) that an entry of the appearance should be made on the docket. This was not done in the present instance, and therefore the judgment by default (for non-appearance) was regular. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Serg. & Rawle 164, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-v-waldron-pa-1825.