Blair v. Weaver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Upon error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, it appeared, that this was a scire facias post annum et diem, returnable to March term, 1822, issued by the defendant in error, to revive a judgment entered at September term, 1808. An appearance de bene esse, was entered for the defendant, notwithstanding which, the plaintiff’s attorney, on the 9th of March, 1822, signed judgment for want of an appearance.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Upon error to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia county, it appeared, that this was a scire facias post annum et diem, returnable to March term, 1822, issued by the defendant in error, to revive a judgment entered at September term, 1808. An appearance de bene esse, was entered for the defendant, notwithstanding which, the plaintiff’s attorney, on the 9th of March, 1822, signed judgment for want of an appearance. A rule was afterwards granted by the court below, to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated ;• and another, to show cause why the scire facias should not…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The only proper question for revision in this court is, whether the entry of the attorney’s name de bene esse, was *85a full appearance; if it was, then the judgment by default was erroneous. The others are matters of practice, proper for the ultimate decision of the court, in which the alleged irregularities are said to have arisen. I own, I thought it matter of strict practice for the plaintiff’s attorney, without any notice to defendant’s attorney, to enter an office judgment, within the first four days of the court; but as I now understand,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scott v. IsraelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Winrow v. RaymondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846