Stedman v. Poterie

Citations

• 139 Pa. 100
• 21 A. 219
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 962

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Courts of Common Pleas have power to establish rules authorizing the entry of judgment for such part of the plaintiff’s demand as is not denied by the affidavit of defence, and permitting the plaintiff to proceed thereafter to issue and trial for the residue of the claim.</p> <p>2. Unless the court or the parties intend by it to put an end to the action, when such a judgment is entered, under the authority of a rule of court, its amount may be liquidated and collected by execution, without barring the plaintiff’s right to proceed for the balance claimed: Brazier v. Banning, 20 Pa. 315, distinguished.</p> <p>3. It seems that a court rule authorizing an interlocutory judgment for a part of a claim “ admitted or not denied,” is applicable, when an affidavit of defence as to the part lacks the legal requisites; at all events, an order of court directing such a judgment is a special rule sufficient for the purpose.</p> <p>1. The execution on the interlocutory judgment will be under the control of the court, when equitable grounds for such control exist; and a judgment which has such elements of finality as liquidation of amount and capacity to support an execution, may well be held sufficiently final to sustain an appeal therefrom: Per Mr. Justice Mitchell.</p> <p>5. The procedure act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271 did not incorporate into it existing rules of court, as to entering judgment for part of a claim, so as to take them out of the control of the courts; rules on that subject old and new, are still within the control of each court in respect to its own practice: Marlin v. Waters, 127 Pa. 177, explained.</p>