Shaylor v. Parsons
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 4, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff from the orders of C. P., Bradford Co., February T., 1895, Nos. 486 and 487, making absolute the rule to show cause why judgments entered by confession in the above cases should not be satisfied. Rules to show cause why judgments (for §200 and §240 respectively) confessed, by virtue of warrants in leases of personal property should not be directed to be satisfied.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 4, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff from the orders of C. P., Bradford Co., February T., 1895, Nos. 486 and 487, making absolute the rule to show cause why judgments entered by confession in the above cases should not be satisfied. Rules to show cause why judgments (for §200 and §240 respectively) confessed, by virtue of warrants in leases of personal property should not be directed to be satisfied. The rules in both instances were made absolute on petition and answer filed by the defendant and plaintiff, both of which are set out in the-opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Willard, J.,
Without entering into a discussion of the questions raised and presented in the paper-books of the parties, the judgment in the court below will have to be reversed for the reason that the record does not present a case warranting the court below in granting a rule to show cause why the judgments in question should not be satisfied and making the same absolute. It appears from the record that two judgments in the court below, the one to No. 486 February term, 1895, and the other to No. 487 February term, 1895, were entered for-$200 and $240 respectively, and upon each of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Felt & Co. ex rel. Gifford v. Cook & HackettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Melan v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Riddle's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
- Reynolds v. BarnesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875