Clark v. Dotter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit on a due-bill, commenced March 29th 1866, returnable the first Monday in April; the writ was returned “ served.” A copy of the due-bill was filed with the praecipe, but no declaration or other statement. There was no appearance for the defendant, nor any affidavit of defence.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit on a due-bill, commenced March 29th 1866, returnable the first Monday in April; the writ was returned “ served.” A copy of the due-bill was filed with the praecipe, but no declaration or other statement. There was no appearance for the defendant, nor any affidavit of defence. Judgment was taken, April 21st 1866, for want of an affidavit of defence, for $186.90. The defendant took a writ of error, and assigned for error— 1. Entering judgment for the plaintiff, there being no declaration or statement filed, as required…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Read, J.
Judgments by default for want of an appearance could always be taken under the Act of March 20th 1724-5, which act, as construed in practice, has been rc-enacted in the revised Act of June 13th 1836, except as to the -time of filing the narr. We have sketched the history of the Affidavit of Defence Law of 26th March 1835, and the practice under it in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, established by that act, in Sellers v. Burk, 11 Wright *216344. This act provided for taking judgment by default on certain instruments…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Campbell v. FloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- In Re AsheUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Reeves's AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907