Judith v. Dicola Et Ux.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Drew,
Plaintiff, holder of a bond and mortgage, entered judgment on the bond against defendants, the mortgagors, for $3,400, the full amount of the bond. Alleging that they had reduced their debt to $400 by payments to John N. Hetrick, who, they averred, acted as plain tiff’s agent and attorney, defendants petitioned tbe eonrt below for a rule upon plaintiff to show cause why the judgment should not be opened. After a hearing, the court made the rule absolute and framed an issue upon the question of Hetrick’s agency for submission to a jury. Plaintiff appealed.
The facts…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Culbertson v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Mynick v. BickingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Shay v. SchrinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Coxe v. KriebelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Mallisee v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Messmer Et Ux. v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Beyer v. Lancaster Lodge No. 68 Knights of PythiasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.