Legal Opinion · Dissent

Parliament Industries, Inc. v. William H. Vaughan & Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 2, 1981No. 2309 and 2310Published

1DissentWatkins, Judge

I dissent. Each judgment note specified that judgment could be confessed for an amount “appearing due as of any time past, present, or future”. Since all of the judgment notes arose out of one transaction, I find that this wording clearly supports the conclusion reached by the court below. As stated by the court below:

“The confession of judgment clauses in question also authorize the Prothonotary ‘to admit the maturity (of the notes) hereof by acceleration or otherwise.’ An instrument payable in installments containing a warrant to confess judgment can, absent a specific provision for…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Whitney v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  2. Grant Con. Co. for Use v. Stokes Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API