Kurtz v. Farrell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 115, April T., 1910, Fifth District, by Knights of Pythias Lodge No. 493, from order of C. P. Jefferson Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 3, refusing to strike off decree pro confesso in case of T. M. Kurtz et al. v. Laura Farrell et al. Motion to strike off decree pro confesso.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 115, April T., 1910, Fifth District, by Knights of Pythias Lodge No. 493, from order of C. P. Jefferson Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 3, refusing to strike off decree pro confesso in case of T. M. Kurtz et al. v. Laura Farrell et al. Motion to strike off decree pro confesso. Reed, P. J., filed the following opinion: This is an application to strike off the order whereby the bill in this case was taken pro confesso, and to permit the defendant to file its answer to said bill. The matter of the bill was decreed by the court ex parte at the time the bill was taken pro confesso, but no…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The bill in equity in this case was filed to November Term, 1907, of the court of common pleas of Jefferson *359county. The docket entries in the case are not printed in the appellant’s paper-book, but it is stated in the opinion of the learned judge of that court, and is undisputed, that the bill was served on September 9, 1907. Nor is it alleged that the usual rule and notice to appear within fifteen days and to answer within thirty days were not served as prescribed by the equity rules. Equity rule 29 provides that in default of compliance with the rule to answer the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kurtz v. BubeckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. SekulaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Mitchell v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Conley, Exrx. v. ConleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933