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.

YOUNG v. MATHEWS TRUCKING CORPORATION. (01/03/56)

January 3, 1956

YOUNG, APPELLANT
v.
MATHEWS TRUCKING CORPORATION.



Appeal, No. 1, March T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, March T., 1953, No. 179, in case of Ernest Grant Young, George A. Tenos, John E. Tenos and Inez Tenos, doing business as Tenos Brothers v. Mathews Trucking Corporation. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Clyde P. Bailey, with him James B. Ceris, Thomas J. Dempsey and Weller, Wicks & Wallace, for appellants.

Oran W. Panner, with him Thompson Bradshaw and Bradshaw & Panner, for appellee.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

Author: Arnold

[ 383 Pa. Page 465]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD

This was a petition to strike off a judgment entered by default. It necessarily had to do with the regularity of the record under admitted facts, and could not be based upon any equities of the situation. The court declined to strike off the judgment but opened it, and the plaintiffs appealed.

This appeal is by the plaintiffs and not by the defendant, and there is not before this Court the validity of the ruling of the court below refusing to strike off the judgment: Bowser v. Citizens Light, Heat & Power Company, 267 Pa. 483, 489, 110 A. 372; Miller v. Wayne Title & Trust Company, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 329, 338, 35 A.2d 786.

Without the consent or even the knowledge of the parties, the court below converted the rule to strike into a rule to open, and thereupon made the rule absolute. This was error: Hamborsky v. Maggar Presbyterian Church (No. 1), 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 519. See also Nixon v. Nixon, 329 Pa. 256, 263, 198 A. 154.

Before the court could open the judgment it was necessary for the petition to set forth (1) due diligence;

[ 383 Pa. Page 466]

(2) the grounds for opening the judgment; and (3) the existence of a meritorious defense, by averring the facts upon which the meritorious defense is based: Planters Nut and Chocolate Company v. Brown-Murray Co., Inc., 128 Pa. Superior Ct. 239, 244, 193 A. 381. See also Britton v. Continental Mining and Smelting Corporation, 366 Pa. 82, 84, 76 A.2d 625.

In addition, the appellee in the case at bar entered only a qualified appearance, and to open the judgment he must first submit ...


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.