Remick v. Letterle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Remick v. Letterle

89 Pa. Super. 322, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 64

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 6, 1926

DocketAppeal 219

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 Pa. Super. 322 (Remick v. Letterle) 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

Remick v. Letterle, 89 Pa. Super. 322, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 64 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

Judgment was entered against the defendant for want of an appearance. Soon after he learned of the existence of the judgment, he presented his petition to open. The court granted a rule on plaintiff and after answer filed, made it absolute.

*323 The settled practice is that if a defendant in a judgment entered for want of an .appearance comes forward in a reasonable time, puts in a sufficient affidavit of defense and makes a proper excuse for his non-appearance, the court will open the judgment and let him into a defense and thus afford him the constitutional right of trial by jury. See cases cited in 10 P. & L. Digest, 15990-15892.

We would not reverse the lower court unless there were a plain case of abuse of discretion. The judge of the Municipal Court who opened the judgment gave his reasons for his action: (1) The defendant literally following the mandaie of the writ, appeared on the return day in person before the Clerk of the Court. This assertion in his petition was not properly denied in the answer filed by the plaintiff. (2) The plaintiff’s statement is defective in that it consists of lumping charges. (3) The affidavit presented by the defendant discloses facts which if believed by the jury will result in a verdict in his favor.

We are all of the opinion that' the lower court did not err in affording the defendant the opportunity of going to trial.

The order, making absolute the rule to open the judgment, is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

Judgment was entered against the defendant for want of an appearance. Soon after he learned of the existence of the judgment, he presented his petition to open. The court granted a rule on plaintiff and after answer filed, made it absolute.

*323 The settled practice is that if a defendant in a judgment entered for want of an .appearance comes forward in a reasonable time, puts in a sufficient affidavit of defense and makes a proper excuse for his non-appearance, the court will open the judgment and let him into a defense and thus afford him the constitutional right of trial by jury. See cases cited in 10 P. & L. Digest, 15990-15892.

We would not reverse the lower court unless there were a plain case of abuse of discretion. The judge of the Municipal Court who opened the judgment gave his reasons for his action: (1) The defendant literally following the mandaie of the writ, appeared on the return day in person before the Clerk of the Court. This assertion in his petition was not properly denied in the answer filed by the plaintiff. (2) The plaintiff’s statement is defective in that it consists of lumping charges. (3) The affidavit presented by the defendant discloses facts which if believed by the jury will result in a verdict in his favor.

We are all of the opinion that' the lower court did not err in affording the defendant the opportunity of going to trial.

The order, making absolute the rule to open the judgment, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Pa. Super. 322, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remick-v-letterle-pasuperct-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack