Citation Numbers: 156 A. 575, 102 Pa. Super. 127
Judges: OPINION BY GAWTHROP, J., April 15, 1931:
Filed Date: 3/3/1931
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued March 3, 1931. On May 31, 1929, plaintiff caused writs of scire facias to be issued in the court below on two mechanics *Page 129 liens which he had filed against two properties belonging to defendants. Defendants filed affidavits of defense and plaintiff entered in each case a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affiadvit of defense. After argument on the rules the court below, on November 1, 1929, filed an opinion and entered the following order in each case: "The affidavit of defense is adjudged insufficient, and unless defendants file a supplemental affidavit of defense within fifteen days remedying the defects pointed out in the opinion, judgment will be entered against them." On November 29, 1929, when no supplemental affidavits of defense had been filed, plaintiff's attorney filed with the prothonotary praecipes for judgments "as per order of the court," and judgments were entered accordingly on that day. On April 19, 1930, defendants filed supplemental affidavits of defense. On April 21, 1930, they filed petitions to strike off and to open the judgments. On June 18, 1930, the court discharged the rules granted on the petitions and approved the entry of the judgments nunc pro tunc. Defendants have appealed in each case from the orders discharging their rules. The appeals were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion.
Appellee moved to quash the appeals on the ground that they were not taken within three months from the entry of the judgments of November 29, 1929. If the appeals had been taken from these judgments they would have been too late. But as the appeals, which are sanctioned by the Act of May 20, 1891, P.L. 101, were taken from the orders refusing to strike off and to open those judgments, they were in time. It follows that the motion to quash must be dismissed.
Appellants contend that the judgments were void and should have been stricken off, because they were entered "contrary to law by an attorney on a mere praecipe for judgment and not by the court, as provided by Section 32 of Mechanics' Lien Act of June 4, 1901, P.L. 431, as amended by the Act of May 23, 1913, *Page 130
P.L. 307." The pertinent provisions of the section are that the court "is authorized and directed to enter judgment against such of said defendants as shall have been duly served according to law, or have appeared, for want of an affidavit of defense, or sufficient affidavit of defense, as the case may be, if the parties so served or appearing, or any of them, shall neglect or fail to file an affidavit of defense within the time mentioned in the said writ." By the terms of this section of the statute the court alone has the authority to direct the entry of a judgment on a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense to a scire facias sur mechanics' lien. The procedure under the Mechanics' Lien Act corresponds with the general practice in actions of assumpsit: Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Carson,
In each appeal the first assignment of error complaining of the discharge of the rule to strike off the judgment is sustained; the assignments complaining of the refusal to open the judgments are dismissed; the judgments are reversed and it is ordered that the record be remitted for further proceedings.
Allen v. Krips , 119 Pa. 1 ( 1888 )
North v. Yorke , 174 Pa. 349 ( 1896 )
Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Carson , 53 Pa. Super. 91 ( 1913 )
Miller ex rel. Hart v. Neidzielska , 176 Pa. 409 ( 1896 )
Watkins v. Neff , 287 Pa. 202 ( 1926 )
Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Carson , 248 Pa. 417 ( 1915 )