
    Cumberland Building and Loan Association v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellant.
    
      Judgments — Judgment entered by agreement of counsel — Dispute as to terms of agreement — Rule to open judgment — Appeal— Practice, Supreme Court.
    
    Where a rule to show cause why judgment should not he entered was pending in the Court of Common Pleas and in pursuance of an agreement between opposing counsel, judgment was entered, but on appeal counsel differed as to the conditions of the agreement, the Supreme Court directed that the judgment be vacated and that the rule to show cause why it should not be entered be reinstated.
    
      Argued March 28, 1916.
    Appeal, No. 60, Jan. T., 1916, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1915, No. 837, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of The Cumberland Building and Loan Association (No. 2) v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland.
    Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
    Judgment vacated.
    Assumpsit on a bond.
    Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    The court made the rule absolute. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      Edward M. Biddle, for appellant.
    
      William F. Brennan, for appellee.
    April 17, 1916 :
   Per Curiam,

The judgment in this case was entered by the court below in pursuance of some agreement on the part of counsel for the appellant that it should be entered. He and counsel for appellee, when the case was called for argument, differed as to the conditions annexed to the said agreement. Under the circumstances it is ordered that the judgment be vacated, that the rule to show cause why it should not be entered be reinstated and that the record be remitted for the due disposition of the said rule.  