Hipple v. Laird
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1898, No. 241, discharging rule to open judgment. Assumpsit to recover broker’s commissions. Rule to open judgment. From the record it appeared that the defendant had inadvertently overlooked the service of summons upon him, and that judgment had been entered for want of an affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1898, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1898, No. 241, discharging rule to open judgment. Assumpsit to recover broker’s commissions. Rule to open judgment. From the record it appeared that the defendant had inadvertently overlooked the service of summons upon him, and that judgment had been entered for want of an affidavit of defense. Subsequently he filed an affidavit of defense, and petitioned the court to open the judgment. On the rule to open the judgment, Slagle, P. J., filed the following opinion: The claim in this case is for…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The learned judge of the court below refused to open the judgment in this case because he did not consider the affidavit of defense sufficient to prevent judgment. That was a very good reason for refusing to open the judgment. Upon exam*474ining the affidavit we find that it was insufficient to prevent judgment for the very reasons stated in the opinion of the court. That being so, there was no error in the refusal of the court to open the judgment.
2Cited by15 opinions
- Axilbund v. McAllisterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Shumaker v. LEARSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Lieberman v. ColahanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Sowney v. BairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- McDonald v. KimmellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.