Vanormer v. Ford
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 25th 1881. Before Mercub, Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett and Green, JJ. Sharswood, O. J., absent. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county : Of May Term 1881, No. 33. Replevin, by W. P. Ford, et al. against William O. Yanormer for one bay liorse, etc.
Read the full summary
May 25th 1881. Before Mercub, Gordon, Paxson, Trunkey, Sterrett and Green, JJ. Sharswood, O. J., absent. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county : Of May Term 1881, No. 33. Replevin, by W. P. Ford, et al. against William O. Yanormer for one bay liorse, etc. The writ issued July 20th 1878, “ returnable next term, first Monday in September next,” viz., Sepl ember 8th 1878. The summons was served July 22d 1878. A claim property bond was entered by the defendant, and the horse was retained by him. On September 9th 1878, the plaintiff filed his declaration in replevin, and on the same…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
The defendant did not appear upon the return day. On the day following the plaintiff filed his declaration, and at the *179same time signed judgment against the defendant by default for want of an appearance.
This was error. To entitle the plaintiff to a judgment by default under the Act of 1836, he must file his declaration before the return, day. Dennison v. Leech, 9 Barr 164; Foreman v. Schricon, 8 W. & S. 43 ; Black v. Johns, 18 P. F. S. 83. In. the case last cited it was held the defendant is not bound to appear until a declaration has been filed, and when none had been filed at the appointed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Foreman v. SchriconSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844