Barbe v. Davis
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THE facts were these. On the 12th of June 1835, a capias ad respondendum was issued in this case, returnable on the first Monday of July following. Upon this the defendant was arrested, and gave bail to the sheriff. On the 30th of June, the plaintiff filed his declaration, being assumpsit on a promissory note, a copy of which was filed at the same time. July 25th, on motion, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, for want of an affidavit of defence.
Read the full summary
THE facts were these. On the 12th of June 1835, a capias ad respondendum was issued in this case, returnable on the first Monday of July following. Upon this the defendant was arrested, and gave bail to the sheriff. On the 30th of June, the plaintiff filed his declaration, being assumpsit on a promissory note, a copy of which was filed at the same time. July 25th, on motion, judgment was entered for the plaintiff, for want of an affidavit of defence. Damages having been assessed by the pro--thonotary, on the 27th of the same month a fieri facias was issued upon this judgment. Two days…
1Opinion of the CourtStroud, J.
-The defendant asks that the judgment should be opened on three grounds: 1. Because he has sworn that he has a set-off to the demand of the plaintiff. 2. Because he has sworn that *119another person ought to have been made a co-defendant with him. 3. That the judgment was granted before he had eateied special bad, and before the expiration of the time which, by a rule of court then m force, was allowed for that purpose.
In regard to the first two grounds, while it is conceded that on satisfactory evidence of lire existence of a just defence on the merits of the action, the court would opeo a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hertzog v. EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Moulson v. ReesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hutchinson v. Manchester Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905