McDonald v. Allen
Decision Date | 12 January 1965 |
Parties | Thomas E. McDONALD, Appellant, v. Billy ALLEN. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Edwin S. Malmed, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Raphael Goldstein, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Thomas E. McDonald filed a trespass action against Billy Allen on October 29, 1963.
The Complaint was served November 4, 1963, and, in the normal course of events, an appearance was due to be filed by November 25, 1963. Despite numerous telephone requests from McDonald's counsel and a letter from him dated December 20, 1963 asking Allen's insurance company to enter an appearance and file an Answer 'at once', no appearance was filed in behalf of Allen. On February 14, 1964, some 82 days after the answer was due, McDonald entered judgment by default.
On March 11, 1964, Allen petitioned to open the judgment and McDonald filed an answer denying the material averments of the Petition. Depositions were taken on April 16, 1964; and the court below made absolute the rule to open the judgment. This appeal followed.
The Court below gave no reasons for opening the judgment, except that:
In Ehnes v. Wagner, 388 Pa. 102 at 104, 130 A.2d 171 at 172, we said:
The court below made no findings or conclusions as to equitable considerations which called for the opening of the judgment. The defendant in his brief argues the existence of such equitable considerations, but the record fails to support them.
He attacks the service of the Complaint, but the Deputy Sheriff, who appeared at the depositions as defendant's witness, testified that he called at defendant's residence and served the person who identified himself as Billy Allen, the defendant. The defendant admits that the Complaint was in his possession, but argues that he was imposed upon by the many telephone conversations made by plaintiff's counsel to defendant's insurance carrier and by the letter of December 20, 1963, in which conversations and letter, plaintiff's counsel repeatedly requested that an Answer be filed. He claims that by reason of the letter and the weekly telephone calls, he was led to believe that no default judgment would be taken. Thus, the defendant would rely on plaintiff's counsel's indulgence as a representation that he would continue to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Graham v. Kutler
...13, 1976 since his prior " exercise of generosity did not create a binding obligation for its continuance." See, McDonald v. Allen, 416 Pa. 397, 206 A.2d 395 (1965); Triolo v. Phila. Coca-Cola Bot. Co., supra ; Eble v. Criterion Insurance Co., supra ; Jost v. Phoenixville School Dist., supr......
-
Shainline v. Alberti Builders, Inc.
...441 Pa. 179, 272 A.2d 472 (1971); Triolo v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 440 Pa. 164, 270 A.2d 620 (1970); McDonald v. Allen, 416 Pa. 397, 206 A.2d 395 (1965); B. C. Y., Inc., Equipment Leasing v. Bukovich, --- Pa.Super. ---, 390 A.2d 276 (1978); Van Horn v. Alper, 385 A.2d 462 (Pa.......
-
McEvilly v. Tucci
...was ever received. "The exercise of generosity does not create a binding obligation for its continuance." McDonald v. Allen, 416 Pa. 397, 400, 206 A.2d 395, 396 (1966). See also Triolo v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra. The court, therefore, as an exercise of its discretion, con......
-
Kennedy v. Black
...226 Pa.Super. 270, 272, 307 A.2d 423, 424 (1973), appellees can find no refuge in the above-quoted standard. In McDonald v. Allen, 416 Pa. 397, 400, 206 A.2d 395, 396 (1965), we "... The Superior Court well stated this kind of a situation in Derbyshire Bros. v. McManamy, 101 Pa.Super. 514: ......