Kirby v. Coolbaugh
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1898, by-plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Bradford Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 57, striking off satisfaction of judgment and subrogating Emily Coolbaugh to the plaintiff’s rights. Rule on J. P. Kirby to show cause why satisfaction of judgment should not be stricken off and Emily Coolbaugh subrogated to his rights. Before Searle, P. J., of the 34th judicial district, specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1898, by-plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Bradford Co., Feb. T., 1894, No. 57, striking off satisfaction of judgment and subrogating Emily Coolbaugh to the plaintiff’s rights. Rule on J. P. Kirby to show cause why satisfaction of judgment should not be stricken off and Emily Coolbaugh subrogated to his rights. Before Searle, P. J., of the 34th judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the evidence that E. B. Coolbaugh died intestate, leaving to survive him a widow, Emily Coolbaugh, and two sons, A. D. and F. H. Coolbaugh. At the time of his death he owned…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Porter, J.,
The court below has found the fact to be that “ on the 13th day of December, 1893, A. D. Coolbaugh, F. PI. Coolbaugh and Emily Coolbaugh gave John Sullivan a note containing a confession of judgment for the sum of $1,100; said A. D. Coolbaugh and F. H. Coolbaugh were principals in said note, and the said Emily Coolbaugh signed the same as surety.” The last clause of this finding is challenged by the appellant on the ground that it is not warranted by the evidence. Such a finding of fact would be disturbed only for manifest error. Here the evidence justifies the finding…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Douglass's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Gring's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879