Harwood v. Bruhn Et Ux
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,
As authorized by section 28 of the Act of February 24, 1806, 4 Sm. Laws 270, 278, the prothonotary of the court below, on the application of plaintiff, and without the filing of an averment of default, entered judgment against defendants for the amount specified in a bond and warrant of attorney executed by them and belonging to plaintiff. Claiming that the warrant gave no authority for the entry of a judgment unless there was a default on defendants’ part at the time of its entry, and moreover that the fact of default must be averred of record at that time,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kolf v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Patchin v. Mayor of BrooklynNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Ewing v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. RoddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Commonwealth ex rel. District Attorney v. KistlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TabbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Sowers EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- Rosen v. Superintendent of Police Le StrangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Commonwealth v. SchultzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
- Dime Bank v. Andrews, P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.