From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wm. E. Sturges Son v. Page

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 16, 1932
163 A. 327 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)

Opinion

November 23, 1932.

December 16, 1932.

Judgments — Judgment for want of an affidavit of defense — Neglect of counsel — Petition to open judgment — Written affidavit setting forth defense.

On a petition to open a judgment entered against a defendant for want of an affidavit of defense, it was averred that the failure to file an affidavit of defense was due to the neglect of counsel but the petition was not accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the nature of the defendant's defense. An oral statement of the defense was made to the court below and it, regarding such statement sufficient, made absolute the rule.

In such case, where no defense by proper affidavit in writing was made, the record will be remitted to the lower court in order that the petitioner may amend his petition and disclose his defense by proffer of a proper affidavit.

Relief will be granted from a judgment entered by default as the result of a mistake or oversight of counsel, where application is promptly made and reasonable explanation or excuse for the default is offered and a defense is shown upon the merits.

Appeal No. 360, October T., 1932, by plaintiff from decree of C.P., Chester County, September T., 1932, No. 168, in the case of Wm. E. Sturges trading as Wm. E. Sturges Son v. R. Holmes Page.

Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD and PARKER, JJ. Reversed and remitted.

Petition to open judgment entered for want of an affidavit of defense. Before HAUSE, P.J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court made absolute the rule. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.

W.E. Bushong, for appellant.

T.D. Wade, and with him J.G. McKeone, for appellee.


Argued November 23, 1932.


Judgment was entered by default for want of an affidavit of defense on the 29th day of August, 1932. Three days thereafter there was a petition presented to open the judgment, the allegation therein being that the failure to file an affidavit of defense was due to the neglect of counsel. The court, after hearing was had in which the petitioner was heard, opened the judgment, filed no opinion, but in the order stated that the reason for the opening of the judgment was on the ground that "it was the fault of this man's counsel, he was not here to enter an appearance and file an affidavit of defense." Relief will be granted from a judgment entered by default as the result of a mistake or oversight of counsel, where application is promptly made and reasonable explanation or excuse for the default is offered and a defense is shown upon the merits: Bianca v. Kaplan, 105 Pa. Super. 98; National Finance Corporation v. Bergdoll, 300 Pa. 540; 151 A. 12. In the present case, however, no defense by proper affidavit in writing was disclosed, and the court might well have refused to open the judgment for that reason. However, under the exceptional circumstances disclosed by the argument at bar, the court below evidently regarding an oral statement of the defense sufficient, we have concluded that the judgment should be reversed and the record remitted to the lower court in order that the petitioner may amend his petition and disclose his defense by proffer of a proper affidavit, so that the court may in conformity with the proper practice consider the matter.

Order is reversed and the record remitted for further proceedings. Appellee to pay the costs upon this appeal.


Summaries of

Wm. E. Sturges Son v. Page

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 16, 1932
163 A. 327 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
Case details for

Wm. E. Sturges Son v. Page

Case Details

Full title:Wm. E. Sturges Son, Appellant, v. Page

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 16, 1932

Citations

163 A. 327 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)
163 A. 327

Citing Cases

Scott v. McEwing

See Howland v. Home Ins. Co., supra. Wherever the rule has been stated as requiring that the petitioner show…