Kutz v. Naugle
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 23, March T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., May T., 1893, No. 95, in favor of defendant, on framed issue. Framed issue. Before E. W. Biddle, P. J. It appears from the record that judgment was entered on a note of John A. Naugle in favor of A. J. Kutz and II.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 23, March T., 1898, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., May T., 1893, No. 95, in favor of defendant, on framed issue. Framed issue. Before E. W. Biddle, P. J. It appears from the record that judgment was entered on a note of John A. Naugle in favor of A. J. Kutz and II. A. Kutz, trading as A. J. Kutz & Son, for $290. An execution being issued on this judgment, a petition was taken to stay the fi. fa. and let defendant into a defense on which petition a rule was granted and an issue framed, the inquiry submitted to the jury being, “what portion, if any, of said…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The judgment in this case was entered in March, 1893, while the plaintiffs were engaged in business as partners. In December, 1894, the partnership was dissolved, and the business was thereafter continued by A. J. Kutz. In September, 1896, the defendant made an application to open the judgment, on the allegation of payment, upon which an issue was framed to determine what portion, if any, remained unpaid. The jury determined this question in favor of the defendant.
It is contended that the court erred in opening the judgment because there was not sufficient shown to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- J. B. Larzelere & Son v. TielSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Todd v. LorahSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874