Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Oberlin v. Parry

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1926No. Appeal, 192PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Kephaet,

It is settled in many cases that the Act of 1806, authorizing the prothonotary to enter judgment on a note, being in derogation of the common law right to be legally summoned or to voluntarily appear in some form, should be strictly construed: Com. v. Conard, 1 Rawle 249; Hope v. Everhart, 70 Pa. 231; Whitney v. Hopkins, 135 Pa. 246; Connay v. Halstead, 73 Pa. 354; Jameson Piano Co. v. Earnest, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 586, 588; Eddy v. Smiley, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 318; Meyers & Joly v. Freiling, 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 116, 119. The instrument must contain sufficient…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Grover & Baker Sewing MacHine Co. v. RadcliffeSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Baughman's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Curry v. Bacharach Quality Shops, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  4. Whitney v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  5. Meyers & Joly v. FreilingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Romberger v. RombergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Deibert to Use. v. RhodesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Schwartz v. SherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Riccardi Mot. Car Co. Inc. v. WeinsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  5. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. FoleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API