Legal Opinion

Haverford Township School District v. Herzog

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 8, 1934No. Appeal, 61PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Kephart,

In an action in assumpsit, to plaintiff’s statement of claim, defendant filed his affidavit of defense containing a counterclaim and rule to reply. No reply was filed. Defendant had the prothonotary enter judgment against plaintiff for the full amount of the counterclaim. Some four or five years later plaintiff petitioned the court below to strike off the judgment, and it was so ordered. Defendant appeals.

The Practice Act of 1915, section 17, covers the case. This section provides as follows: “In actions of assumpsit the prothonotary may enter judgment for want…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. King v. BrooksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
  2. Federal Sales Co. v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Pennsylvania Stave Co.'s AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  4. Bair & Gazzam, Lim. v. HubarttSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  5. Abeles v. PowellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Sharp v. Valley Forge Medical Center & Heart Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Dellacasse v. Floyd Exrs.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Funds for Business Growth, Inc. v. MaraldoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Galli's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Strickler v. United Elevator Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API