Legal Opinion

Judith v. Dicola Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 4, 1934No. Appeal, 74PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Williams v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Browne v. HoekstraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Culbertson v. CookSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  5. Mynick v. BickingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Shay v. SchrinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Coxe v. KriebelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Mallisee v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Messmer Et Ux. v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Beyer v. Lancaster Lodge No. 68 Knights of PythiasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

1 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