H. Silberman & Co. v. Shuklansky
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 145, Oct. T., 1895, by plaintiff from order of C. P. Lawrence Co., June T., 1894, No. 808, making absolute a rule to open a judgment. Rule to open judgment. Before Miller, P. J., specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 145, Oct. T., 1895, by plaintiff from order of C. P. Lawrence Co., June T., 1894, No. 808, making absolute a rule to open a judgment. Rule to open judgment. Before Miller, P. J., specially presiding. On May 24, 1894, a judgment was confessed in favor of plaintiff and against defendants for $5,250 with interest from March 21, 1894, and an attorney’s commission of $262.50 on a note bearing date, Newcastle, Pa., March 21, 1894, at sixty days, to the order of plaintiff for five thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, with interest from date, with warrant of attorney for confessing…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
On July 7,1894, the rule theretofore granted on the plaintiffs to show cause why the judgment, as to the defendant Rosenblum, should not be opened and he let into a defense, etc., was discharged. Nearly two months thereafter Rosenblum presented his petition praying, for reasons set forth therein, that the said decree discharging the rule to show cause be set aside, that he be permitted to take further testimony in support of the original rule, and that, upon a rehearing, the judgment be opened, etc. Thereupon, September 3, 1894, a rule on the plaintiffs was granted to show cause…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Markofski v. YanksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Johnson v. NippertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Kappel v. MethSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. HoulihanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Fogel Refrigerator Co. v. OteriSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.