Everhart v. Fulmer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Argued May 5, 1914. Appeal, No. 103, April T., 1914, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., Dec. T., 1908, No. 174, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of Earl Everhart to use of D. A. Everhart v. Charles Fulmer and Mary Whitmer. Rule to open judgment entered on a judgment note.
Read the full summary
Argued May 5, 1914. Appeal, No. 103, April T., 1914, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Clarion Co., Dec. T., 1908, No. 174, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of Earl Everhart to use of D. A. Everhart v. Charles Fulmer and Mary Whitmer. Rule to open judgment entered on a judgment note. The note in question was as follows: “$300. Pigeon, Pa., Nov. 11th, 1908. “One year after date we promise to pay to the order of Earl Everhart Three Hundred Dollars, With interest and without defalcation for value received. And we hereby authorize any Attorney of any Court of Record in Pennsylvania,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trbxleb, J.,
The court below, upon a petition being presented alleging that the name of the subscribing witness to a promissory note was affixed after the execution of the note and without the knowledge and consent of the makers, opened the judgment which had been entered by virtue of a warrant of attorney contained in the note and granted an issue to determine the facts in dispute. The depositions taken show that there is great doubt as to the time when the name of the subscribing witness was affixed and as to whether the name was affixed with the knowledge and consent of the makers.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bank v. FulmorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Wright v. LinhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Shiffer v. MosierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Foust v. RennoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Henning v. WerkheiserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848