Legal Opinion

Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 1934No. Appeal, 163PublishedCited by 194 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

This appeal is from a refusal to open a judgment entered on a bond accompanying a mortgage. An application to open a judgment entered upon a warrant of attorney is an equitable proceeding, addressed to the sound discretion of the court and to be disposed of in accordance with equitable principles. The judge sits as chancellor. On appeal this court determines only whether the discretion has been abused. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misap plied, or the judgment exercised is…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Bank v. FulmorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  2. Augustine v. WolfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Dobbs v. ZinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by194 opinions

  1. Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  2. Commonwealth v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  3. Paden v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. ChambersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. RandolphSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

189 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API