Miller ex rel. Hart v. Neidzielska
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 318, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., No. 1453, Oct. T., 1895, striking off judgment entered against Pelagia Neidzielska, the defendant. Rule to show cause why tbe judgment entered should not be stricken from the record. Before Lynch, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 318, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., No. 1453, Oct. T., 1895, striking off judgment entered against Pelagia Neidzielska, the defendant. Rule to show cause why tbe judgment entered should not be stricken from the record. Before Lynch, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment in the case should not be stricken from the record as void.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Williams,
We fully agree with much that is said by the appellants in regard to the necessity for the exercise of care in striking judgments. from the record. The cases in which the exercise of such a power is proper are few. When a judgment has been regularly entered upon the records, it may be opened for cause shown, an issue may be directed to determine the right of the plaintiff to have execution upon it, or he may be restrained from proceeding to enforce it, as the facts may require. But to justify the court in striking a judgment from its records, it should appear…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Giles v. RyanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Gedrich v. Yaroscz Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Bruner v. Motz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County1923
- Hildebrand v. Dougherty, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1922
- Middle City Bank v. Consumers Box Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.