Seymour v. Hubert
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1879, No. 95. Scire facias to revive a judgment and quare executionem non, issued by Alice Hubert against Sarah Lewis and Lewis R. Seymour and Joseph P. B. Eddy, executors of Sarah Tingle, deceased. The judgment was entered on a judgment note given by Sarah Tingle and Sarah Lewis to Alice Hubert.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1879, No. 95. Scire facias to revive a judgment and quare executionem non, issued by Alice Hubert against Sarah Lewis and Lewis R. Seymour and Joseph P. B. Eddy, executors of Sarah Tingle, deceased. The judgment was entered on a judgment note given by Sarah Tingle and Sarah Lewis to Alice Hubert. It was for $125, and dated December 17th 1873. Sarah Tingle died in 1874. The scire facias to revive was returnable on the first Monday of February 1875. The defendants obtained a rule to set aside the scire facias, open…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur
It may be conceded as a general rule, that in case of a scire facias to revive a judgment, no defence can be made except matters arising subsequent to the judgment. The merits of the original judgment cannot be inquired into so as to admit a defence which might have been set up in the original suit: Cardesa v. Humes, 5 S. & R. 65; Davidson v. Thornton, 7 Barr 128 ; Pitts., Cin. & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Marshall, 4 Norris 187. If the objection be to the validity of the former judgment, the proper mode is to apply to have it opened.
The original judgment in this case was entered on a judgment…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clark v. BaranowskiOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Lauer ex rel. Woltjen v. KetnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Smith v. Bald Hill Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Mellon v. SawyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906