Paist v. Spittall
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 218, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1913, No. 3,876, discharging rule to open judgment in case of Henry C. Paist v. Eliza S. Spittall. Rule to open judgment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule to open judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The plaintiff, a practicing physician, sued the defendant in assumpsit for a sum alleged to be due him from her for professional services, and, on May 28, 1913, judgment was regularly entered in his favor for want of an affidavit of defense and plea. On July 14 following, the defendant was granted a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and she be allowed to defend. No answer was filed by the plaintiff, and in due course the rule was discharged. This is the only matter assigned for error in this appeal.
The defendant alleged in her petition for the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Fritz v. HathawaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Kelber v. Pittsb. N. Plow Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1892
- Clarion, M. & P. R. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Genesee Paper Co. v. BogertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Ashman v. WeigleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Field v. FieldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Gilbert v. Litton, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fulton County1936