Case Name: Cosmos Building and Loan Association v. Courtenay, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1917-03-12
Citations: 257 Pa. 153
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 192
Parties: Cosmos Building and Loan Association v. Courtenay, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Mosciizisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 257
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
Cosmos Building and Loan Association v. Courtenay, Appellant.
Judgments — Opening judgment — Averments—Burden of proof.
A rule to show cause why a judgment entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense should not be opened was properly discharged where the testimony taken in support of the petition for relief was insufficient to sustain the averments.
Argued Jan. 26,1917.
Appeal, No. 192, Jan. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Sept, T., 1915,. No. 2529, discharging rule to' open judgment in case of Cosmos Building and Loan Association v. Patrick J. Courtenay.
Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Mosciizisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition for rule to open judgment entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before Barratt, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The court discharged the rule, defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in discharging rule.
R. H. Loche, for appellant.
David Bortin, Jacob Singer and Emanuel Eurth, for appellee, were not heard.
March 12, 1917:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The judgment in this case was entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Shortly after it was entered a rule was granted, upon the application of defendant, to shmv cause why it should not be opened for reasons set forth in his petition for relief from it. The burden was upon him to support the averments of fact which he made in asking that the judgment be opened, and to negative the averments of fact contained in the answer to his petition. After a very careful review of what he showed in support of his averments, the learned court below concluded that they had not been supported by sufficient evidence, and the rule to show cause was discharged. We concur in this conclusion, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant's costs.