Burley v. Filby

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 30, 1899

Burley v. Filby, 193 Pa. 374 (Pa. 1899)

44 A. 453; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1130

Cueiam, Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam,

This appeal is from the decree of the court below discharging defendants’ rule to show cause why the judgment in plaintiff’s favor entered in 1893, on the scire facias to revive, should not be opened as to them and they let into a defense.

*377Our consideration of the evidence, aided by the clear and concise argument of defendants’ counsel, has not convinced us that there was any error in discharging the rule. In view of all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence we cannot say that there was any abuse of the sound discretion that should always be exercised in such cases.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at appellants’ costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: Lindsey Burley v. William Filby, David Chess, Samuel H. Roach and W. T. Kent, alias William T. Kent
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Judgment—Revival of judgment—Release—Evidence—Laches. The Supreme Court will not reverse an order of the common pleas refusing to open a judgment entered on a scire facias to revive, where it appears that an alleged release of the judgment, dated three years prior to the revival of the judgment, is pronounced by plaintiff to be false and fraudulent; that the release was not set up as a defense to the revival of the judgment, although defendants were served with the writ of scire facias; that it was not produced until seven years after its alleged execution, and after the death of the magistrate who was alleged to have drawn and attested it; that no consideration of the lease was shown, and seventeen witnesses familiar with the magistrate’s handwriting testify that the release is not in his handwriting, and that the signature on it is not his genuine signature.