Opinion by
Plаintiff, Arnold Epstein, executor of the estate of Emmanuel Epstein, obtained a rule upon defendant, A. *590 C. Kramer, in the court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, to show cause why a satisfaction of judgment should not be set aside. Defendant’s Answer raised preliminаry objections to plaintiff’s petition and, from a judgment enterеd on the pleadings in defendant’s favor, plaintiff has brought this apрeal.
Defendant, on May 25,1942, gave Emmanuel Epstein (hereinaftеr referred to as Epstein) a judgment note in the sum of $10,000 payable in 30 days as security for a loan in that amount made by Epstein to defendant. Epstein subsequently, on October 20, 1942, entered judgment by default on the note. Defendant thereupon requested Epstein to mаrk the judgment satisfied on the books of the prothonotary, pointing out the harmful effect the entry of that judgment was having on defendаnt’s business, and promising in return to pay the debt after • the judgment was markеd satisfied. Epstein agreed, and on October 26, 1942, had the judgment so marked. However, defendant failed to pay and nothing more wаs done by either party until after the death of Epstein in January, 1946, when plaintiff, as executor of his estate, filed a bill in equity petitiоning that the satisfaction of judgment be stricken from the record and that defendant be ordered to pay the $10,-000 he allegedly owes. The bill was certified to the law side of the court to be considered as a petition for a rule to show cause why the satisfaction of judgment should not be stricken from the record. The petition of plaintiff alleged that the satisfaction had been entered as a result of “fraud, misrepresentation and triсk” and “without consideration”. Defendant filed an answer containing preliminary objections, which were sustained by the learned сourt below, setting forth that the averments of fraud and failure of сonsideration were insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff was аllowed to amend but, upon'defendant again raising preliminary objections to plaintiff’s petition on the *591 same grounds as in Ms first answеr, the court below entered judgment for defendant on tbe pleadings.
On this appeal plaintiff does not question tbe holding of tbe court below that tbe allegations of fraud were insufficient. Hе contends only that tbe court below erred in ruling that the failure оf defendant to keep bis promise to pay was not a suffiсient ground for striking tbe satisfaction of judgment. We cannot agreе with this contention. A petition for a rule to show cause why a satisfaction of judgment should not be stricken from tbe record is equitable in nature and governed by equitable principles:
City Deposit Bk. and Tr. Co. v. Zoppa,
Judgment affirmed.