Legal Opinion

Helzlsouer, to Use v. Golub

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 13, 1932No. Appeal, 46PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Nicholas Vincetish, one of defendants, appeals from the order of the court below discharging his rule to open a revived judgment entered on a promissory note.

“In determining whether or not a judgment should be opened, the court below is required to weigh the evidence of both parties, consider the credibility of the witnesses, give due effect to writings which cannot be subject to bias or forgetfulness, and, in the exercise of a sound discretion, decide, as a chancellor, whether or not, in equity and good conscience, defendant has a just defense to the note......on which the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Warren Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. FoleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Wertheimer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Pine Brook Bank v. KearneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Hein v. FetzerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Certelli v. BraumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Luzerne Nat. Bk. v. Gosart Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Stoner v. WiseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Teutonic Building & Loan Ass'n v. SteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Philadelphia Fixture & Equipment Corp. v. CarrollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Sirant v. SolkoskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API