William Flaccus Oak Leather Co. v. Heasley
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 56, April T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. Yenango Co., Aug. T., 1911, No. 49, refusing to vacate a judgment in case of William Flaccus Oak Leather Company v. M. P. Heasley. Motion to vacate judgment. Criswell, P. J., filed the following opinion: The judgment entered is regular on its face and the reasons assigned in support of the motion to vacate furnish no basis for so doing.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 56, April T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. Yenango Co., Aug. T., 1911, No. 49, refusing to vacate a judgment in case of William Flaccus Oak Leather Company v. M. P. Heasley. Motion to vacate judgment. Criswell, P. J., filed the following opinion: The judgment entered is regular on its face and the reasons assigned in support of the motion to vacate furnish no basis for so doing. Neither do the facts alleged in the affidavit attached to the motion constitute a sufficient defense to the plaintiff’s claim. It is not stated when or by whom any representations were made as…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
In this action of assumpsit the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant on July 12, 1911, for the sum of $245.26 in default of an appearance and affidavit of defense. This judgment is conceded to be regular and valid upon its face. It was duly entered at the proper time after the filing of the plaintiff’s declaration or statement of claim and upon the following return made by the sheriff of Venango county: “And now, June 19, A. D. 1911, served the within summons on M. P. Heasley, the within *130named defendant, by handing to him personally at his place of business…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Breden v. GillilandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- O'Hara v. BaumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- North v. YorkeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Knowles v. LordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Vaughn v. LoveSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Frank P. Miller Paper Co. v. Keystone Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Keystone Telephone Co. v. DiggsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Gehret v. PizitzPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1925
- Hinkel v. Beiting, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fulton County1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.