Case Name: Colwell et al. v. Wehrly, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1892-07-13
Citations: 150 Pa. 523
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 92
Parties: Colwell et al. v. Wehrly, Appellant.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Stekrett, Williams, McCollum and Hexdrick, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Colwell et al. v. Wehrly, Appellant.
Opening judgments—Amount admitted to be due by affidavit.
The refusal of the court below to open a judgment taken for the amount admitted to be due in defendant’s affidavit of defence, in open court, after notice to counsel of record, will not be reversed by the Supreme Court.
Argued May 16, 1892.
Appeal, No. 92, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant George Wehrly, sued as a partner with Joseph A. Wolfersberger, from decree of C. P. Lancaster Co., May T., 1877, No. 3, refusing to open judgment for plaintiff, S. R. Colwell et ah, trading as Weymouth Paper Mills, for amount admitted to be due by affidavit of defence.
Before Paxson, C. J., Stekrett, Williams, McCollum and Hexdrick, JJ.
Petition to open judgment. The petition averred, inter alia, that petitioner, Wehrly, was not a member of the firm sued and that he had no knowledge of the affidavit of defence. The record shows that petitioner was served, and he did not deny the partnership as required by rule of court.
¡Error assigned, inter alia, refusal to open judgment.
¡B. ¡F. Davis, for appellant; J. W. Johnson, for appellee.
July 13, 1892.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
Tbe appellant is a member of the firm of J. A. Wolfersberger & Co., against which firm this suit was brought in the court below to May Term, 1877. In June, 1877, Wolfersberger, one of the defendants, filed an affidavit of defence to a part of the claim. Nothing further appears to have been done until October, 1891, when judgment was taken for the amount admitted to be due. An application was subsequently made by George Wehrly, one of the defendants, to open the judgment for the reasons stated in his petition. The judgment was not taken for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, as alleged by appellant. On the contrary, it was taken, as the record shows, for only the amount admitted in defendant's affidavit of defence to be due, and in open court, after notice to counsel of record, and he consenting thereto. Under these circumstances the judgment will have to stand.
Judgment affirmed.