Legal Opinion

Pore v. Duke Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1931No. Appeal, 38PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Walling,

This appeal by defendants, is from the lower court’s refusal to open a judgment entered upon a bond accompanying a mortgage. The record discloses nothing to indicate that the court abused its discretion therein. In May, 1918, J. E. Tracy, a real estate agent at Greens-burg, negotiated the purchase of a house and lot on Concord Street in that city for the defendants, Philip Duke and wife. They needed $2,000 to complete the purchase, which Tracy secured for them by a loan on the property. This he negotiated through Bell & Bell, attorneys for the plaintiff, Lottie…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Dobbs v. ZinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Mynick v. BickingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  5. Froio v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Shay v. SchrinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Judith v. Dicola Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  4. Mallisee v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Kienberger v. LallySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

4 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