Tanner's Appeal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton county: Of May Term 1880, No. 45. Appeal of Samuel D. Tanner from the order of the court discharging a rule to show cause why a judgment should not be opened and defendants therein, Samuel D. Tanner and Adaline Tanner, his wife, be let into a defence. . Samuel D. Tanner petitioned the court as follows: That the defendants in the judgment are husband and wife.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton county: Of May Term 1880, No. 45. Appeal of Samuel D. Tanner from the order of the court discharging a rule to show cause why a judgment should not be opened and defendants therein, Samuel D. Tanner and Adaline Tanner, his wife, be let into a defence. . Samuel D. Tanner petitioned the court as follows: That the defendants in the judgment are husband and wife. That the judgment was entered on a single bill, with warrant of attorney to confess judgment, providing for the payment of interest and dues, in the form commonly used by building and loan…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur
This is an appeal from the refusal of the court to open a judgment entered by confession on warrant of attorney. The wife of the appellant was the' OAvner of stock in the Building and Loan Association. Assuming to act as a full member of the association, the loan Avas made to her. To secure the payment thereof, the obligation on which this judgment was entered Avas executed by the appellant and his wife jointly. The money passed directly from the appellee into the hands of the appellant, and appears to have been used by him. It must be conceded, under the authority of Wolbach et ux. v. The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Patterson v. Marine N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Commonwealth v. ROMITOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950