Foreman v. Schricon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of debt founded upon an insolvent bond, by Henry Schricon against Hugh Bean and George D. Foreman, brought to January term 1842, and the writ duly served upon the defendants. The defendants did not appear. On the 27th August 1842, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a declaration and signed judgment for want of appearance, which the court below refused to set aside.
1Per curiam
A judgment like the present was sustained in Morrison v. Wetherel, (8 Serg. & Rawle 502), though it had been signed palpably in violation of the Act of 1724-5. The justification of that decision is to be found in the universality of the practice, and the great number of judgments that would have been overturned by disturbing it. The fact is, the statute had been effectively repealed by the indolence of the profession. But nearly the same provision has been repeated in the existing statute, and the Legislature certainly intended that it should be executed. To accomplish this, and prevent…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morrison v. WetherillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by6 opinions
- Melloy's Sons v. Deal & BurtisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Black v. JohnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Dennison v. LeechSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Vanormer v. FordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Melloy's Sons v. Deal & BurtisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.