Drey St. M. Co. for Use v. Nevling
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
Defendant appeals from the order of the court below refusing to strike off a judgment entered by the prothonotary pursuant to the Act of February 24, 1806, 4 Sm. L. 278, upon a note authorizing the confession of judgment “for the amount, which, from the face of the instrument, may appear to be due.”
We think the case was rightly decided on the authority of Whitney v. Hopkins, 135 Pa. 246, decided in 1890, and approved by the Supreme Court as late as 1926, in Pacific Lumber Co. v. Rodd, 287 Pa. 454, 458.
In Whitney v. Hopkins, as in this case, the obligation was for a…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kolf v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Whitney v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Connay v. HalsteadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. RoddSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Home Credit Co. v. PrestonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Nevling v. Commercial Credit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Dime Bank Trust Co. of Pittston v. O'BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- BAC Corp. v. RosenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Grant Con. Co. for Use v. Stokes Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.