Legal Opinion

Holland Furnace Co. v. Hasso

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

Decided January 10, 1956No. 3902Published

1Opinion of the Court

Alpern, J.,

The matter before the court is a motion by defendant to strike a judgment against her, confessed on a warrant of attorney. The chief reason assigned as a basis for the motion is that the record does not show by any allegation or supporting affidavit that defendant defaulted in the payment of any sum due plaintiff for the space of 10 days after the same became due and payable. It is asserted that such an allegation or affidavit, is essential to support any confession of judgment.

In support of this claim, defendant cites the warrant of attorney in the contract which reads as follows…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kolf v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  2. Kahn v. HarlanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  3. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. FrederickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Kirch v. CrawfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API