Keen v. Vaughan's
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a proceeding in the court below, founded on the suggestion and petition of James S. Keen, in which was set forth that an action was brought in court to June Term 1860, No. 896, by Mary Davis against petitioner, to recover an alleged balance due her upon the purchase, by petitioner, of said Mary Davis’s dower interest in her late husband Anthony Davis’s estate ; and that a judgment was recovered by her against petitioner…
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was a proceeding in the court below, founded on the suggestion and petition of James S. Keen, in which was set forth that an action was brought in court to June Term 1860, No. 896, by Mary Davis against petitioner, to recover an alleged balance due her upon the purchase, by petitioner, of said Mary Davis’s dower interest in her late husband Anthony Davis’s estate ; and that a judgment was recovered by her against petitioner thereupon, on the 26th day of March 1864, for the sum of $1356.60 ; that subsequently to the judgment rendered, to wit,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Strong, J.
— Assuming that the record of the application for the audita querela is properly before us, and that the writ of error has brought up the proceedings we are asked to review, we are all of the opinion that the plaintiff in error has no cause of complaint. Beyond his petition for the writ we are not at liberty to look. The depositions are no part of the record. If by the showing of his petition there was no ground for the relief which he sought, the court below was not in error in refusing to award the writ. The most that can be made of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Yadusky v. ShugarsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Citizens' National Bank v. MarksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907