Legal Opinion

International Fin. Co. v. Magilansky Et Ux.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 1932No. Appeal 88PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Trexler, P. J.,

Judgment was entered on a warrant of attorney contained in a note, signed by the defendants Magil.ansky and wife, payable to the United Home Improvement Company, and by it endorsed to the International Finance Company, Inc.

There was a petition to open presented to the lower court and a great deal of testimony taken. The court directed the judgment to be opened, confining the issue to (a) lack of consideration by reason of failure to install the furnace in accordance with the terms of the contract; and (b) proof of payments made by defendants on account of the note in…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Home Credit Co. v. PrestonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Kline v. Fitzgerald Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Levitt v. Johnstown Office Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Dull v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Implement Credit Corp. v. ElsingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  2. First National Bank of Portland v. Hartman Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Sisemore & Kierbow Co. v. NicholasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Colonial Fi. Co. v. Hoover Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. First National Bank of Philadelphia v. Anderson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1956

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API