Case Name: LYON and another, Administrators of FORSYTH, against WALDRON
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1825-06-27
Citations: 13 Serg. & Rawle 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: LYON and another, Administrators of FORSYTH, against WALDRON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 13
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
[Sunbury,
June 27, 1825.]
LYON and another, Administrators of FORSYTH, against WALDRON.
IN ERROR.
Entering an attorney’s name on the margin of the docket opposite the defendant’s name is not a sufficient appearance, where by the practice of the court an en» try of the appearance must be made in the docket.
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, a scire facias issued in this case to Fugust term, 1824, by Cornelius Waldron, plaintiff below and defendant in error against William Lyon and Matthew Forsyth administrators of Robert Forsyth, deceased, on a judgment which had been recovered against the intestate. The scire facias was returned served, and at the Fugust court on motion of the plaintiff’s counsel, the court rendered judgment. In the record as returned, the name of Mr. Fisher, was marked opposite the defendant’s names.
Potter, for the plaintiff in error,
now insisted that the judgment was erroneous. A scire facias issued to which the defendant appeared by attorney, and yet judgment was entered at the first court without a rule to plead.
Alexander, contra.
There was no appearance. The marking the name of an attorney without something more is no appearance. The president of the court has ordered that unless a plea is put in, though no rule to plead is entered, judgment shall be rendered the first court, and such has been the practice.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was a scire facias on a judgment, on which judgment was entered by default the first term, without a rule to plead. This is contended to be an error. The defendant's attorney says, that he appeared to the scire facias, and was therefore entitled to a rule to plead before judgment could be entered against him. On the other hand, the plaintiff alleges that there was no appearance; and on that point the cause turns. The only evidence of an appearance, is the entry of the name of an attorney (Fisher) on the margin of the docket. According to the practice in some courts, this might be sufficient, but we have ascertained, that it is not so, in Mifflin county. It is there required, (and we think it a very prudent regulation,) that an entry of the appearance should be made on the docket. This was not done in the present instance, and therefore the judgment by default (for non-appearance) was regular. It is the opinion of the court that the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed*