Nichols v. Anguera
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
IN this case, (S. ’37, 646,) Nichols was the plaintiff, and J. M. Anguera and Matthew Curran (trading as Anguera and Curran) were the defendants. The action was entered by agreement and the defendants confessed judgment for twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside.
Read the full summary
IN this case, (S. ’37, 646,) Nichols was the plaintiff, and J. M. Anguera and Matthew Curran (trading as Anguera and Curran) were the defendants. The action was entered by agreement and the defendants confessed judgment for twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside. The affidavit of the plaintiff was filed, upon which the rule was granted, stating 1, that the sum of twenty-six hundred and fifty dollars was due to him; 2, that he was informed by defendants, and believed at the time of entering the above judgment,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
The cause of action was joint against the partners whoever they were. If it be true, as averred by plaintiff, *291that Curran was a . partner, whether dormant or otherwise, the taking of the confession of the judgment from the two copartners is an absolute discharge of Curran, which we have no right to nullify. Without the consent of all parties, we have no right to interfere.a
Rule discharged.
See Smith v. Black, 9 S. & R. 142; Lewis v. Williams, 6 Whart. R. 264.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gaut v. Reed Bros. & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1859