Case Name: Myler, Appellant, v. Wittish
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-11-10
Citations: 204 Pa. 180
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 9
Parties: Myler, Appellant, v. Wittish.
Judges: Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 180–180

Head Matter:
Myler, Appellant, v. Wittish.
Appearance—Judgment— Want of appearance—Opening judgment—Attachment under act of 1869.
A judgment entered for want of an appearance in an attachment under the act of March 17, 1869, will be opened where it appears that before judgment was entered the defendant had appeared in court personally, and by counsel on the hearing of a motion to dissolve the attachment, that he had been served with a rule to plead, and filed an answer and a demurrer. All this was equivalent to a formal appearance.
Argued Oct. 22, 1902.
Appeal, No. 9, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Beaver Co., June T., 1901, No. 199, opening judgment in case of James K. Myler v. Edward Wittish et al.
Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Attachment under act of 1869. Before Wilson, P. J.
Rule to open judgment entered for want of an appearance.
Error assigned was order opening judgment.
J. F. Reed, for appellant.
Ran H. Stone, Henry Hice and Agnew Hice, for appellees, were not heard.
November 10, 1902 :

Opinion:
Per Curiam,.
Before judgment was entered for want of an appearance, the defendant had appeared in court personally, and by counsel on the hearing of a motion to dissolve the attachment. He had been served with a rule to plead, and had filed an answer and. a demurrer.
The court treated this as equivalent to a formal appearance and we think properly so.
The order striking off the judgment is affirmed.