action upon claim in Pennsylvania

1915We have taken occasion in several recent cases to point out that under our equity rules each assignment of error must be self sustaining, that is, it must show the exception taken in the court below to the ruling complained of, the action upon the exception—in totidem verbis—and the ‘pages must be stated where the matter referred to is to be found in the paper books of appendix.’ (See Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267 , and cases there cited).” And again in Ridgway v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.

1914We have taken occasion in several recent cases to point out that under our equity rules each assignment of error must be self sustaining, that is, it must show the exception taken in the court below to, the ruling complained of, the action upon the exception — in totidem verbis — and the “pages must be stated where the matter referred to is to be found in the paper books or appendix.” (See, Prenatt v. Messenger Printing Co., 241 Pa. 267 , and cases there cited: Kane & Elk R.

2015The trial court cited to Tully Drilling Co., Inc. v. Shenkin, 409 Pa.Super. 333 , 597 A.2d 1230 (1991) wherein the Superior Court expressed that mechanics’ lien proceedings are comprised of two, distinct phases, namely the filing and perfecting of the claim and the instituting and prosecuting of an action upon the claim, and that the documents relating to each stage are “entered in separate dockets, kept in separate files, and bear separate designations of court term and number.” Trial Court Order, 7/25/12 at n. 1 citing fully, 597 A.2d at 1232 .

2015The trial court cited to Tully Drilling Co., Inc. v. Shenkin, 409 Pa.Super. 333 , 597 A.2d 1230 (1991) wherein the Superior Court expressed that mechanics’ lien proceedings are comprised of two, distinct phases, namely the filing and perfecting of the claim and the instituting and prosecuting of an action upon the claim, and that the documents relating to each stage are “entered in separate dockets, kept in separate files, and bear separate designations of court term and number.” Trial Court Order, 7/25/12 at n. 1 citing fully, 597 A.2d at 1232 .

1943In an action upon such a claim the declaration must, therefore, be upon the new promise, and not the original, as the latter is extinguished by the discharge.” See, also, Murphy v. Crawford, supra; Hobough v. Murphy, supra; Yoxtheimer v. Keyser, 11 Pa. 364 ; 8 C.

1925In an action upon such a claim, the declaration must, therefore, be upon the new promise and not the original, as the latter is extinguished by the discharge:” Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. 78 .

1925In Hobough v. Murphy, 114 Pa. 358 , it was held that, “although the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is to extinguish a pre-existing debt — not merely to bar the remedy upon it — yet the moral obligation of the debtor is a sufficient consideration to support an express promise to pay it.” In Murphy v. Crawford, 114 Pa. 496 , it was said: “In a suit of this kind, to recover a claim which had been barred by a discharge in bankruptcy, the following distinct principles may certainly be considered as settled by the decision of the court: First, the effect of the certificate in bankruptcy is to e

1925In Hobough v. Murphy, 114 Pa. 358 , it was held that, “although the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is to extinguish a pre-existing debt — not merely to bar the remedy upon it — yet the moral obligation of the debtor is a sufficient consideration to support an express promise to pay it.” In Murphy v. Crawford, 114 Pa. 496 , it was said: “In a suit of this kind, to recover a claim which had been barred by a discharge in bankruptcy, the following distinct principles may certainly be considered as settled by the decision of the court: First, the effect of the certificate in bankruptcy is to e

1915Co., 244 Pa. 282 , Mr. Justice Elkin said (p. 283): “This appeal might very well be dismissed on the ground that the assignments of error are not in proper form under our rules.

1886Mr. Justice Clark, delivered the opinion of the - court In a suit brought to recover a claim which had been barred by a discharge in bankruptcy, the following distinct principles may certainly be considered as settled by the decision of the court: — first, the effect of the certificate in bankruptcy is to extinguish the debt, not merely to bar the remedy for its recovery; Second, the prior legal1 obligation is a sufficient con sideration for a new promise to pay it; third, the promise to be effective must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal without qualification or condition; and fourth, in an

1886Mr. Justice Clark, delivered the opinion of the - court In a suit brought to recover a claim which had been barred by a discharge in bankruptcy, the following distinct principles may certainly be considered as settled by the decision of the court: — first, the effect of the certificate in bankruptcy is to extinguish the debt, not merely to bar the remedy for its recovery; Second, the prior legal1 obligation is a sufficient con sideration for a new promise to pay it; third, the promise to be effective must be clear, distinct, and unequivocal without qualification or condition; and fourth, in an