Geiselman v. Shomo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 83, Oct. T., 1899, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 397, in favor of plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Oblady, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Judgment for plaintiff for $196,96. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 83, Oct. T., 1899, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1898, No. 397, in favor of plaintiff for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Opinion by Oblady, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Judgment for plaintiff for $196,96. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was entry of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
On April 13, 1897, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant for want of an affidavit of defense, and on November 13, 1897 a rule to open this judgment was discharged. On November 26 a writ of alias fieri facias was issued, under which a levy was made on the defendant’s real estate, and on December 8 a venditioni exponas was issued, and under this writ the defendant’s lands were levied upon, and were sold on January 3, 1898. On December 22, 1897, an appeal was taken to this court from the order of the court below, in entering judgment for want of an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allen v. KellamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by2 opinions
- Elkin's PetitionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Kilzol Products Co. v. John T. Porter Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1925