McCutcheon ex rel. Gregg v. Allen

96 Pa. 319, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 407
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 26, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 96 Pa. 319 (McCutcheon ex rel. Gregg v. Allen) 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
McCutcheon ex rel. Gregg v. Allen, 96 Pa. 319, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 407 (Pa. 1880).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, November 26th 1880.

■ The record shows a scire facias issued on a mortgage, service of writ accepted by the defendant, and affidavit of defence filed. Afterwards the affidavit of defence was withdrawn and judgment confessed by the defendant for a sum specified as per writing filed. Thus it is shown to have been a judgment in all respects regular in form.

On petition of the defendant the court afterwards granted a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and satisfied to the extent of a sum specified in petition. ' An answer was filed denying the averments in the petition. Depositions were taken, and after argument the rule was made absolute and judgment reduced as prayed for. Thus the court in effect ordered satisfaction to be entered for a part of the judgment. The discretion of the court in 'opening the judgment we will not review'. But in ordering satisfaction to be entered of a part of the judgment, when the facts were disputed and there was no agreement to submit to the decision of the court, ivas error. The court has no power to strike off a judgment regular on its face when the facts are controverted: Breden v. Gilliland, 17 P. F. Smith 34; nor to compel it to be satisfied. The proper course is to award an issue: Homer & McCann v. Hower, 3 Wright 126. The plaintiff therein cannot be deprived of his constitutional trial by jury unless he has agreed to waive it. In this case the record does not show any waiver, 'and it was admitted on the argument there was no such agreement. The evidence is persuasive that the judgment was the result of a compromise of the plaintiff’s claim. Against his consent he cannot be deprived of it without its validity being passed upon by a. jury. Regularly this should be reviewed on writ of error. We can now change to one, and it is ordered accordingly. An appeal does not lie;

Judgment reversed, and a procedendo ordered.

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

Related

Grone v. Northern Insurance Co.
7 Pa. D. & C.2d 777 (Montour County Court of Common Pleas, 1956)
Hatzenbuhler v. Talbot
132 F.2d 192 (Seventh Circuit, 1942)
Nixon v. Nixon
198 A. 154 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Kutz v. DeLong
30 Pa. D. & C. 668 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1937)
Brader v. Alinikoff
85 Pa. Super. 285 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Kaplan v. Baron
68 Pa. Super. 514 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Lillie v. Dennert
232 F. 104 (Sixth Circuit, 1916)
Allen v. Gregg ex rel. McCandless
16 A. 46 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 Pa. 319, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccutcheon-ex-rel-gregg-v-allen-pa-1880.