Lytle v. Forrest
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 82, July T., 1895, by N. L. Hoover, one of the defendants, from order of C. P. Clear-field Co., March T., 1876, No. 612, discharging rule to open judgment. Rule to open judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 82, July T., 1895, by N. L. Hoover, one of the defendants, from order of C. P. Clear-field Co., March T., 1876, No. 612, discharging rule to open judgment. Rule to open judgment. Gordon, J., filed the following opinion: This is a rule on part of N. L. Hoover, one of the defendants, to open a judgment entered May 19, 1876, for want of an affidavit of defense, because the "writ of summons was not served upon him, but instead, service thereof was accepted by the firm of McEnally & McCurdy for defendants without his knowledge or authority. The evidence, however, shows that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
For reasons given by the learned president of the court below, he was clearly right in discharging appellant’s rule to open the judgment.
Applications to open judgments by default, and let the defendants into a defense, are appeals to the equitable power of the court, and Should be made with reasonable promptness. In this case appellant’s laches were inexcusable. His petition was not presented until after the death of the plaintiff and the lapse of about eleven years after he knew that judgment had been entered against him for want of an affidavit of defense. Having failed to give…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Tri State Industries, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- American Malting Co. v. Anthracite Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- E. T. Burrowes Co. v. Cambridge Springs Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904