Legal Opinion

Archbald v. Hood Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 20, 1936No. Appeal, 187PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Stern,

In this case the court below made absolute a rule taken by a married woman to open as to her a judgment entered by confession on a note executed by her and her husband. Ordinarily a decision in such a proceeding is for the discretion of the court, but here the question was not one for the exercise of discretion but was governed by legal principles which required, even though all the testimony offered by the petitioner were true, that the rule to open the judgment should be discharged.

In 1923 defendant J. Parke Hood, husband of defendant Marjorie K. Hood, purchased…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commercial Acceptance Corp. v. RuppelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Morris v. Duers and DuersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Olney Bank & Trust Co. v. GettlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Penna. Trust Co. v. Koller Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Kaufman v. LehmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cooper v. Lucas Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. Hanover Trust Company v. KeagySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Harr, SEC. of Banking v. SchwinnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Peoples-Pittsburgh Tr. Co. v. McCaffrey Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API