Roth v. Pechin

Citations

• 260 Pa. 450
• 103 A. 894
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 546

Syllabus

<p>Judgments — Opening judgments — Time — Judgment by default —Bankruptcy of defendant — Application for discharge pending— Bales — Fraud—Attachment.</p> <p>1. Courts are usually liberal in opening judgments for want of an appearance where a good defense or excuse is disclosed. There is no limitation of time to the power of a court to open a judgment entered by default for want of an appearance.</p> <p>2. Where a sale of goods is induced by fraudulent representation as to the assets of the buyer, who subsequently became bankrupt, such fraud does not prevent the bankrupt from setting up his discharge in bar to an action for the purchase-price for the goods.</p> <p>3. On the hearing of a motion to open a judgment entered by default for want of an affidavit of defense it appeared that the claim in question was to recover the value of goods alleged’ to have been sold to defendant as the result of the -latter’s misrepresentations as to his financial condition. Plaintiff commenced a suit in assumpsit for the recovery of such amount. A year later defendant was adjudged a bankrupt, and a month thereafter applied for his discharge. While the decision on such application was pending the court stayed the proceedings in the suit in assumpsit, at the instance of the defendant; after such stay plaintiff brought attachment proceedings in another county where property had been bequeathed to defendant and filed a statement of claim there and obtained judgment for want of an affidavit of defense. Three months later defendant took a rule to open the judgment. It appeared that the stay of proceedings in the first suit and the proof of the claim' in the bankruptcy proceedings, might have misled the defendant, and further that defendant had no means to employ counsel. The judgment was thereafter opened and defendant let into a defense, the order of the court preserving the lien of the attachment. Held, no error.</p>