*1 HESTER, J., dissents. consideration did

decision of case. INC., PENNSYLVANIA, OF REED SHAW STENHOUSE Inc., Consultants, Appellee, formerly known as Insurance Craftsmen, COMPANY, Inc. and Julius Allied J. A. NEISER Appellants. Neiser, Individually, Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Argued April Decided Oct.

Joseph Steedle, A. Pittsburgh, appellants. Laidhold,

Stephen J. Pittsburgh, for appellee. JACOBS, Before President Judge, CER- CONE, PRICE, VOORT, VAN der HESTER, SPAETH and JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This is an from two Orders of the Court of Com- mon Pleas of Allegheny County, first, Pennsylvania. The under date of July 19771dismissed the heretofore issued (dated Rule April 1977) to show why By Smith, Ralph the Honorable H. Jr. 12, 1977, April on against appellants judgment entered The into a defense. appellants let opened should not 28, 1977,2 denied second, appellants’ date of under Judgment. Motion to Striké complaint filed a as follows: Appellee are facts 1977. Service February

assumpsit against appellants on March made each duly upon was process service, following twenty-first day On April upon entered praecipe $9,478.00,together with interest in the amount appellants and costs. 21, 1977, why to show cause issued rule opened should

lants let into a defense. of the individual deposition the May filed, fol- taken, argument oral transcript the official its order

lowed, 14,1977, the lower court entered and cause. There- issued rule to show dismissing previously the appeal. after this is open judgment by to taken default petition of the powers to and equitable discretionary set peculiar must on its own petition Each such stand

court. its In the court to exercise operative of facts. order for in open by discretion and action, (1) The peti three factors must coalesce: assumpsit filed; A meritorious (2) to promptly tion must be open shown; must moving party (3) defense must responsive its to reasonably failure explain court Moreover, opening “the of the lower ruling pleading. unless error of will not be reversed refusing shown.” clear, of discretion is or a manifest law abuse 1297, 501, 368 1298 244 A.2d Pa.Super. v. Chernitsky, Nevils By the Honorable Silvestri Silvestri. (1976); Williams v. Allegheny Plaza, Inc., Union 231 Pa.Su 170, per. (1974); 332 A.2d 493 v. McCoy Public Acceptance 495, 451 Pa. Corp., (1973); A.2d 698 v. Sprouse V.F.W. Post 237 Pa.Super. (1975); and a myriad others.

In case, the instant we find the court below did not abuse its refusing discretion in to make its rule absolute judgment.

Here, inas Nevils v. Chernitsky, supra, took appellee default for want of a pleading on the twenty-first day following service—the first day availa- ble for the of a default entry judgment. (Pa.R.C.P. 1037(b) 1018.1).

The courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania generally view with disfavor taking “snap” judg Hertz, ments. Kraynick 443 Pa. 277 A.2d 144 (1971). Although this was a “snap” judgment, taken on the twenty-first after service day of the complaint, and such judgments are not generally courts, favored by our even a “snap” judgment will not automatically opened. A petition remains an appeal to the discretion of the court, and all three of the above-mentioned factors must be present before the court will open the judgment. Nev- ils v. Chernitsky, supra, 244 Pa.Super. 368 A.2d page In the case, instant however, appellants have failed to *4 two of satisfy the three essential criteria in order to default judgment. deposition, At Neiser, Julius his three-fold as capacity individual, as President and major shareholder of appellant J. A. Neiser Company, and as Treasurer and major shareholder of appellant Allied Crafts- men, Inc., failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritori- ous defense:

Q “Why J. A. Neiser Company pay its didn’t insurance

policy?” any (J. didn’t have Company) A “Because we A. Neiser 65a) (T. thing one . . . .” money its fail- reasonably explain failed to similarly Appellants pleading: ure with your met plead you that Q you “. . . . Do Answer was 1977 in which an attorney get to that date to prior What did do you made? to answer necessary filed or do whatever Answer Complaint?” done, mentioned or that was anything A “I recall don’t point.” to that anything up making appoint- me talking recall Q “Do you me?” ment with they whatever received the

A “Yes. After I Sheriff’s it, Assumpsit.” call be- meeting on that

Q postponement “And was there a something?” I don’t there was for some reason. “I that understand ' (T. 40a) know.” from the lower appeal Accordingly, appellants’ of July court’s Order them, is denied. one from

Further, second we find appellants’ —this denying court’s Order dated lower without merit. similarly Judgment, lants’ Motion to Strike SPAETH, J., dissenting files statement. in the consideration did not of this case.

decision

SPAETH, Judge, dissenting. Allied Crafts- as to appellants, I would men, Inc., and Julius Neiser.