Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BAC CORPORATION v. ROSENBERG (07/20/50)

July 20, 1950

BAC CORPORATION
v.
ROSENBERG



COUNSEL

Martin H. Philip, Slatington, A. Edward Coleman, Allentown, for appellant.

Stanley V. Printz, Allentown, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Dithrich

[ 167 Pa. Super. Page 374]

DITHRICH, Judge.

Appellant, on June 20, 1947, executed a bailment lease to which was attached a judgment note containing a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. The note was for $911.60 and was given to secure the unpaid balance for the rental of twenty vending machines leased to appellant by Andrews & Company. The lessor on the same date assigned the lease and the note to Bac Corporation, appellee.

The note provided for the payment of the face amount in twelve monthly installments, beginning July 20, 1947, and further provided: 'A default in payment of any instalment or any part thereof * * * and without notice and demand shall render the entire unpaid balance due and payable immediately. * * *

[ 167 Pa. Super. Page 375]

'In the event of default as above described,' the make authorized and empowered 'any attorney * * * to appear for and to enter and confess judgment against * * * [him] for the above sum, with or without declaration filed * * *.'

On September 2, 1948, appellee confessed judgment against appellant for the face amount of the note. Appellant obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be stricken from the record on the ground that it did not have attached an averment or declaration of default. After argument the rule was discharged, without prejudice to the defendant to petition the court to open the judgment in the event he had a valid defense to the payment of the note in question. Appellant contends that judgment was improperly and wrongfully entered because the entry of judgment was conditioned upon a default and no default was averred.

It is well established that an averment of default is necessary where 'on the face of the record, no default is apparent'. Kolf v. Lieberman, 282 Pa. 479, 482, 128 A. 122, 123; Hogsett v. Lutrario, 140 Pa. Super. 419, 13 A.2d 902. But where '[b]oth the default and the amount due * * * [are] ascertainable * * * from the face of the instrument,' Whitney v. Hopkins, 135 Pa. 246, 255, 19 A. 1075, 1076, an averment of default is not necessary.

'As it [a judgment note] was past due, an averment that it had not been paid at maturity was unnecessary to advise the prothonotary of the fact, it already appeared; and the only amount involved was that stated on the face of the note'. Dime Bank & Trust Co. of Pittston v. O'Boyle, 334 Pa. 500, 503, 6 A.2d 106, 107. Cf. Drey St. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.