Crawford ex rel. Watson v. Rath
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 109, April T., 1897, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1896, No. 212, refusing to open judgment and let defendant in to a defense. Petition and answer sur rule to open judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 109, April T., 1897, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Nov. T., 1896, No. 212, refusing to open judgment and let defendant in to a defense. Petition and answer sur rule to open judgment. By the petition it appears that Robert Rath, the defendant, alleges a full, legal and equitable defense to the whole of plaintiff’s claim; that he was never indebted to plaintiff except for professional services and for all such services payment in full was had; that he had no recollection of giving the note on which judgment was entered, but if he did give it it was for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Willard, J.,
This is an appeal from the order and decree of the court below discharging a rule to show cause why judgment No. 212 to *615November term, 1896, in said court should not be opened and the defendant let into a defense.
On a careful consideration of the petition and answer, we are satisfied that the answer was respónsive to the petition, and the allegations of the defendant were fully met and explained by the oath of the legal plaintiff.
Tbe receipt of October 4, 1880, purporting to be in full of all professional services to that date, was executed and delivered three months…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bank v. FulmorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Hall v. ApplebeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Walter v. FeesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Klopfer v. EkisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fisher v. HolbrookSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898