right to make defense in Pennsylvania

1977The federal wages statute under considertaion in U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles, supra, specified that a penalty for nonpayment of certain minimum wages was recoverable “before the court.” The United States Supreme Court concluded that the phrase “before the court” implied “a right to make the claim to the court and not a duty to make it before a grievance committee or before an arbitrator.” 400 U.S. at 354 .

1977The federal wages statute under considertaion in U.S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles, supra, specified that a penalty for nonpayment of certain minimum wages was recoverable “before the court.” The United States Supreme Court concluded that the phrase “before the court” implied “a right to make the claim to the court and not a duty to make it before a grievance committee or before an arbitrator.” 400 U.S. at 354 .

1968Recently, in Commonwealth v. Satchell, 430 Pa. 443 , 243 A. 2d 381 (1968), we had occasion to examine that part of §4 which establishes a presumption that the failure to raise an issue at some prior available time is a knowing and understanding failure sufficient to constitute a waiver.

1968Recently, in Commonwealth v. Satchell, 430 Pa. 443 , 243 A. 2d 381 (1968), we had occasion to examine that part of §4 which establishes a presumption that the failure to raise an issue at some prior available time is a knowing and understanding failure sufficient to constitute a waiver.

1938The right also involves the right to adduce testimony and to cross-examine the witnesses on the other side.’ ” Merely to aid in the trial, either personally or through counsel, or to pay the attorney’s fees, or to contribute toward the expenses of the litigation, is not enough to cause the person doing so to be bound by the judgment rendered: Litchfield v. Goodnow’s Admr., 123 U. S. 549 ; Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chem.

1938In Building Society v. Holt, 184 Pa. 572 , we said (p. 576) : “ ‘The law includes all who were directly interested in the subject-matter, and had a right to make defense, or to control the proceeding, and to appeal from the judgment.

1937And, a party to be so bound — ‘must have been directly interested in the subject matter of the proceedings — with the right to make defense, to adduce testimony, to cross-examine the witnesses on the opposite side, to control, in some degree, the proceedings, and to appeal from the judgment.’ 10 R.C.L. p. 1117.” To the same effect see Andrews et al. v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, Limited, 76 Fed. 166 .

1937The latest Federal case on this subject is that of Hinkley Motors & Parts Corp. v. General Insurance Company of America, 53 F.(2d) 1068, 1070 .

1898Apart from the depositions, therefore, the defendant had a right to have the averments of the petition “taken as admitted for the purposes of the rule.” In the absence of an answer or an adequate reason for default in this respect, the court had a right to make the rule absolute: Russell’s Appeal, 98 Pa. 384 .