Case Name: Hughes v. Schreiner, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-05-19
Citations: 202 Pa. 488
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 276
Parties: Hughes v. Schreiner, Appellant.
Judges: Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
Hughes v. Schreiner, Appellant.
Judgment — Suit on foreign judgment — Affidavit of defense.
In an action on a foreign judgment where the i’ecord of the foreign judgment shows an appearance and a defense by the defendant, an affidavit of defense is insufficient which fails to allege either want of jurisdiction of the foreign court, or that the judgment had been legally satisfied.
Argued Jan. 24, 1902.
Appeal, No. 276, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1901, No. 1347, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of J. W. Hughes v. J. H. Schreiner.
Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit on a foreign judgment.
Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
The statement averred that the plaintiffs had recovered a judgment against the defendant in the high court of justice, queen’s bench division in the county of Middlesex, England, in the sum of 529 pounds, 13 shillings and 8 pence with costs. The record of this judgment showed an appearance and a defense.
The defendant filed an affidavit of defense in the present suit in which he did not deny the jurisdiction of the court, nor aver that the foreign judgment had been satisfied. He simply averred as a defense that the judgment had been taken against him in his absence in violation of an agreement that the suit should not be pressed, during his absence. The court made absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
JError assigned was the order of the court.
David C. Harrington, with him Thomas A. Gummey, for appellant.
Frederick J. Geiger and Edward Brooks, Jr., for appellee, were not heard.
May 19, 1902:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
As the affidavit of defense failed to allege either want of jurisdiction or that the judgment had been legally satisfied, it was insufficient and the court was right in entering the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.