Caldwell v. Carter

Decided January 23, 1893

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1893-01-23

Appeal, No. 364, Jan. T., 1892, by defendant, Joseph H. Carter, from order of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., discharging rule to open judgment. Scire facias sur mechanic’s lien. The bill of particulars appended to claim was as follows: "Philadelphia, April 1st, 1891. "Joseph H. Carter, Owner and Contractor. To Caldwell and Johnson, Dr. "1890. "Aug. 30.—To Paper Hanging in 16 houses situate on the north side of Walnut street, between 51st st. and52d street, 27th Ward, Phila., from Aug 30, 1890, to March 21, 1891, . $400.00 By cash on account, 200.00 Balance due, $200.00 ” Judgment was entered for want of an affidavit of defence. The court granted a rule to open the judgment, which it subsequently discharged. Error assigned was the order of the court discharging the rule as above.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-01-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1948

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1This case was affirmed at bar, but we consider it proper to give briefly our reasons for this action.

¶2The claim appears to be defective in that it was for a lump sum with no items of the articles furnished. This cannot be done at all by a subcontractor, nor even by a contractor with the owner, except upon an express contract, which is not averred. But this objection is merely technical and was made too late. The appellant allowed a judgment to be entered against him for want of an affidavit of defence, which is perfectly regular on its face, and no defence is now set up on the merits.

¶3A technical defence on the form of the claim is now too late.

¶4Judgment affirmed.