Legal Opinion

Mallisee v. Hawkins

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 8, 1936No. Appeal, 131PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to open or satisfy a judgment entered on a bond accompanying a mortgage. The review here is limited to a determination of whether the court below abused its discretion; unless its action was manifestly unreasonable or shows a misapplication of the law it will not be reversed : Mielcuszmy v. Rosol, 317 Pa. 92.

Although the evidence reveals that in June, 1915, Hawkins, appellant, gave to Phillips, the banker who had originally negotiated the placing of this mortgage, a sum sufficient to retire it, there is little evidence, if any,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lewis v. MatiasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Pore v. Duke Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Judith v. Dicola Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schuy'l T. Co. v. Sobolewski Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Charles v. HenrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Gillian v. Consolidated Foods Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  4. Lauffer v. VialSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Kane v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API