Legal Opinion

Mattern v. Decker

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1915No. Appeal, No. 8Published

Appeal, No. 8, Oct. T., 1914, by Samuel Whitsel, from order of C. P. Huntingdon Co., May T., 1913, No. 85, discharging rule to open judgment in case of R. J. Mattern, Assignee of Julia T. Glazier in trust for her creditors, v. C. W. Decker and Samuel Whitsel. Rule to open judgment. Before Woods, P. J. The facts are -stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order discharging rule to open judgment.

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion bt

Head, J.,

This appeal comes from an order of the learned court below discharging a rule to show cause why a judgment, entered by warrant of attorney, should not be opened. The petitioner, appellant, was the surety on a note given to C. H. Glazier to secure the payment of a loan of $50.00 made to one Decker, the principal debtor. The note was dated February 21, 1910, and matured in ninety days thereafter. When it was about to become due, notice of that fact was given to both principal and surety. The latter gave verbal instructions to the payee to proceed and collect the note from the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bauschard Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API