Trescott v. Co-operative Building Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 238, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1902, No. 17, discharging rule to open judgment in case of Rush Trescott v. The Co-operative Building Bank. Rule to open judgment. The court discharged the rule.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 238, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1902, No. 17, discharging rule to open judgment in case of Rush Trescott v. The Co-operative Building Bank. Rule to open judgment. The court discharged the rule. Errors assigned were as follows: 1. The court below erred in discharging the rule to open the judgment. 2. The court below erred in discharging the rule to open the judgment placed on the argument list in violation of the rule of court providing for ten days’ notice to opposing counsel of- ordering a case on said list after it was made up. 8. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Mitchell,
The only questions raised by the assignments of error relate to the interpretation and administration by the court below of its own rules. In such cases we have often said that the judgment will not be disturbed except for clear error, to the sub*49stantial injury of the party complaining. No such error has been shown.here. The main cause of complaint is that a judgment for want of an affidavit of defense was prematurely entered, arid that a rule to open it was irregularly put on the argument list, contrary to rule of court and was discharged. Both matters…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kulp v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Bethlehem Steel Co. v. ToplissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Laukhuff's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- North Mountain Water Supply Co. v. TroxellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Levin v. LevinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982