Dikeman v. Butterfield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 19, 1890

Dikeman v. Butterfield, 135 Pa. 236 (Pa. 1890)

19 A. 938; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1177

Clark, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

There was no application in the court below to open this judgment. There was a rule to show cause why it should not be stricken off, which was very properly refused, as the judgment was regular upon its face. If there was any defence, the proper practice was to apply for a rule to open the judgment. This, in case of a legal defence, would have afforded relief in the court below, although in such case no appeal would lie to this court upon a refusal to open: See Limbert’s App., 118 Pa. 589, and Swartz’s App., 119 Pa. 208. As the case stands, there was nothing upon the face of the record, nor does anything appear aliunde which would have justified the court below in striking off the judgment, and the order is

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: E. V. DIKEMAN v. J. A. BUTTERFIELD
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Where a judgment in ejectment, confessed by counsel under a warrant of attorney contained in a lease between the parties, is regular upon its face, a rule to show cause why it should not be stricken off should be discharged.* 2. If there be a defence to such judgment, the proper practice is to proceed by rule to open, etc., though a refusal to open in such proceeding would not be reviewable in the Supreme Court: Limbert’s App., 118 Pa. 589 ; Swartz’s App., 119 Pa. 208.