Fisher v. Hestonville, Mantua & Fairmount Passenger Railway Co.

Citations

• 185 Pa. 602
• 40 A. 97
• 1898 Pa. LEXIS 757

Syllabus

<p>Practice, O. P. — Setting aside judgment after expiration of term.</p> <p>The common-law power to set aside a judgment regular on its face ends at the expiration of the term at which the judgment was entered. The further control of the court over the judgment for that purpose is equitable, and was asserted originally by bill in chancery. The ground of its exercise is therefore exceptional, and should appear of record, so that it may clearly appear that it is not a mere arbitrary exercise of discretion.</p> <p>A verdict was rendered, a rule for a new trial discharged, and judgment on the verdict entered during December term, 1895. In November, 1896, a second rule for a new trial was granted, and in December, 1896, made absolute. No reasons appeared of record for this action of the court, but from depositions taken in the case, and not filed of record, it appeared that the action of the court was based on fraud of the plaintiff and his interpreter by which the verdict was obtained through falsd interpretation of the testimony. Held, (1) that the action of the court was irregular, as there should have been a petition filed setting forth the essential facts of the alleged fraud, as ground for the relief prayed ; (2) that the order of the court below should be reversed, and the record remitted with leave to the defendant to file a petition nunc pro tunc setting forth the grounds for a new trial, and for further proceedings by the court thereupon.</p> <p>While the words “ rule absolute for new trial ” imply all that is meant bythewords “judgment vacated, verdict set aside, and new trial granted,” yet when such an order is made after the expiration of the term, it is much the better practice to have the record kept with full and entire formality, so as to disclose at once, upon inspection, exactly what was done and why.</p>