Volk v. Shoemaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1910, by defendants, from order of C. P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 148, discharging rule to open judgment in case of Bernard Volk, Jr., use of David Pierce, v. Jane V. Shoemaker and W. R. Shoemaker. Rule to open judgment. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court discharged the rule to open judgment. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to open a judgment, entered by confession upon a bond conditioned for the payment of the sum of $3,500 and interest. The bond was dated August 22, 1908, payable in three years. Judgment was entered June 19, 1909, and execution issued the same day. Upon the petition of the defendants, the court below stayed the writ, and granted a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened. Depositions upon both sides were taken; and, after a hearing, the court below discharged the rule. It appears from the petition…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bank v. FulmorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Charles D. Kaier Co. v. O'brienSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Earley's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Janes v. BensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Lane ex rel. Williams v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Allinger v. MelvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Miners State Bank v. AuksztokalnisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives v. WallaceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- McDonald v. MulkeyWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Lincoln Bank v. Gem City Wholesale Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.