Legal Opinion

Hallgarten & Co. v. Schwing

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 12, 1936No. Appeals, 98 and 99PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Appellant averred that she had executed the note, on which judgment had been entered, because of threats and fear that her intimate friend, C. B. Kelley, who had been arrested for obtaining money by fraudulent means, would be sentenced and imprisoned for a long term, and that she was promised the charges would be nolle prossed if she made restitution. She did not allege threats against either her person or property and offered no testimony. The answer of the appellee denied every material averment of the petition.

As the allegations of the petition are flatly denied by the answer,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n v. WalukiewiczSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Ferguson v. O'HaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Huppert v. HuppertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Matovich v. Gradich Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. McCune v. Cramer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1941

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

Powered by the Exa API