Salus v. Curzon
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, Nos. 206 and 207, October T., 1919, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., September T., 1918, No. 2535, discharging rule to strike off and rule to open judgment in the case of Harry Salus v. Paul Curzon. Rule to strike off judgment and rule to open judgment. Before Shoemaker, J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. The court discharged both rules. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defendant gave to tbe plaintiff a judgment promissory note for $300, payable in ninety days from date. Tbe obligation contained tbe usual warrant of attorney authorizing an attorney of any court of record of Pennsylvania or elsewhere to appear for tbe defendant and confess judgment against him for tbe amount of tbe debt with costs of suit release of érrors without stay of execution, and with six per cent added for collecting fees. Tbe note was filed in tbe protbonotary’s office and a judgment entered thereon under tbe authority conferred by tbe Act of February 24,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. State Bank of NCSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Daly v. MaitlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Equitable Life Insurance v. Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Volkenand v. DrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Lee Doon v. TeshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Liberty Aluminum Products Co. v. Cortis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County1958
- Vogt v. BirchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929