Snyder v. Schell

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Snyder v. Schell

30 Pa. D. & C. 684, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County

DecidedDecember 29, 1937

Docketno. 759

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Pa. D. & C. 684 (Snyder v. Schell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snyder v. Schell, 30 Pa. D. & C. 684, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoban, J.,

The case was in trespass for damages to an automobile. The defendant by exception claims that in another case at suit of the instant defendant against the plaintiff before an alderman, arising out of the same accident, the instant defendant recovered a judgment against the plaintiff, which he claims makes the matter before Alderman Bellen res judicata and deprives him of jurisdiction. The difficulty with this situation is that it is a matter altogether outside the record, and defendant has offered us nothing except his exceptions by way of proof. No depositions were taken to support his position. In any event, the plea of res judicata is an affirmative defense to be raised at the trial, and, if disallowed there, defendant’s remedy is by appeal, which [685]*685would bring the matter de novo into common pleas. Defendant argues that he has a right to prove jurisdictional facts outside the record, but as we have pointed out a plea of res judicata does not deny jurisdiction but is a matter of defense to .prevent judgment and must be raised as such.

Now, December 29,1937, the exceptions are dismissed and judgment affirmed.

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

Hoban, J.,

The case was in trespass for damages to an automobile. The defendant by exception claims that in another case at suit of the instant defendant against the plaintiff before an alderman, arising out of the same accident, the instant defendant recovered a judgment against the plaintiff, which he claims makes the matter before Alderman Bellen res judicata and deprives him of jurisdiction. The difficulty with this situation is that it is a matter altogether outside the record, and defendant has offered us nothing except his exceptions by way of proof. No depositions were taken to support his position. In any event, the plea of res judicata is an affirmative defense to be raised at the trial, and, if disallowed there, defendant’s remedy is by appeal, which [685]*685would bring the matter de novo into common pleas. Defendant argues that he has a right to prove jurisdictional facts outside the record, but as we have pointed out a plea of res judicata does not deny jurisdiction but is a matter of defense to .prevent judgment and must be raised as such.

Now, December 29,1937, the exceptions are dismissed and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Pa. D. & C. 684, 1937 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-schell-pactcompllackaw-1937.