From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jordan v. Kirschner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 12, 1928
94 Pa. Super. 252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)

Summary

In Jordan v. Kirschmer, 94 Pa. Super. 252, it was held that a "Judgment entered pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in a lease authorizing the confession of judgment in case of default, was properly stricken off where no averment of default was filed.

Summary of this case from Harwood v. Bruhn

Opinion

April 10, 1928.

July 12, 1928.

Judgments — Striking off — Warrant of attorney — Lease — Authority to confess judgment — Necessity of allegation of default.

Judgment entered pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in a lease authorizing the confession of judgment in case of default was properly stricken off where no averment of default was filed.

In entering judgment on a warrant of attorney the authority thereunder must be strictly followed or the judgment cannot be sustained, and when the warrant authorizes an attorney of record to enter judgment after default and no averment of default is filed, the record is defective.

Appeal No. 48, April T., 1928, by plaintiff from judgment of C.P., Erie County, No. 688, February T., 1926, in the case of George E. Jordan v. H.C. Kirschner.

Before PORTER, P.J., HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP and CUNNINGHAM, JJ. Affirmed.

Motion to strike off judgment entered upon a warrant of attorney contained in a lease. Before ROSSITER, P.J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the lower court which follows:

Upon reargument of the motion to strike off the judgment entered in the above entitled case we are of the opinion that the motion should be granted. We believe that this case is controlled by Kolf v. Lieberman, 282 Pa. 479. While the rule stated there is not new, the fact that there was no averment of a default which would authorize the entry of judgment was not called to our attention at the former argument. It has long been the law that in entering judgment on a warrant of attorney the authority given thereunder must be strictly followed or the judgment cannot be sustained and when the warrant authorizes an attorney of record to enter judgment after default and no averment of default is filed and no indication tending to establish such delinquency, the record is defective. In the case at bar it was necessary before a valid judgment could be entered to file an averment setting forth in what respect a default had occurred. The plaintiff was only authorized to enter judgment on failure to pay rent due, or failure to keep all the covenants of the lease, or failure to remove from the premises at the termination of the same. Then lessor at his option might enter judgment in an amicable action of ejectment upon which he was authorized to issue a writ of habere facias possessionem with a clause of fi. fa. or enter a judgment for the amount of the rent for the entire term. Here there is no averment in the narr in assumpsit or confession of judgment of any default covenanted against in the lease and there being no averment of such delinquency filed the record is therefore defective and the judgment should be and it is now, April 11th, 1927, stricken off without prejudice to the right to bring suit on the lease.

Rule absolute and judgment stricken off. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the order of the court.

Henry C. Baur, for appellant. — Where a lease authorizes the confession of judgment in case of default in payment of rent, judgment may be entered without an affidavit of default: Kahn v. Harlan, 55 Pa. Super. 568; Kirch v. Crawford, 61 Pa. Super. 288; Montelius v. Montelius, Brightly N.P. 79.

Franklin B. Hosbach, and with him Miles R. Nason, for appellee. — Judgment entered upon a warrant of attorney in a lease, without an averment of default, is irregular and void: Kolf v. Lieberman et al., 282 Pa. 479.


Argued April 10, 1928.


The order is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge ROSSITER, of the court below.


Summaries of

Jordan v. Kirschner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 12, 1928
94 Pa. Super. 252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)

In Jordan v. Kirschmer, 94 Pa. Super. 252, it was held that a "Judgment entered pursuant to a warrant of attorney contained in a lease authorizing the confession of judgment in case of default, was properly stricken off where no averment of default was filed.

Summary of this case from Harwood v. Bruhn

In Jordan v. Kirschner, 94 Pa. Super. 252, our court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the judgment on the opinion of the court below which stated the following: "It has long been the law that in entering judgment on a warrant of attorney the authority given thereunder must be strictly followed or the judgment cannot be sustained and when the warrant authorizes an attorney of record to enter judgment after default and no averment of default is filed and no indication tending to establish such delinquency, the record is defective.

Summary of this case from Hogsett et al. v. Lutrario

In Jordan v. Kirschner, 94 Pa. Super. 252, judgment was authorized to be entered not only for a failure to pay the rent due, but also for failure to keep all the covenants of the lease, or to remove from the premises at the termination of the same.

Summary of this case from Drey St. M. Co. v. Nevling
Case details for

Jordan v. Kirschner

Case Details

Full title:Jordan, Appellant, v. Kirschner

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 12, 1928

Citations

94 Pa. Super. 252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)

Citing Cases

Yezbak v. Croce

Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the judgment was entered on the bond on January 26, 1950, and that…

Wilkinsburg Boro. v. School District

No act of assembly warrants the assessment, and, in the absence of express statutory imposition of liability,…