Legal Opinion

Kraft v. Michael Et Ux.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1949No. Appeal, 193PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Dithrich, J.,

This appeal is from the discharge of a rule to show cause why a judgment by confession should not be opened. The judgment was entered on a note given by appellants in part payment for premises which they had agreed to purchase from appellee and his wife. The agreement, entered into by Kinder & Furman, real estate agents for appellee, and the appellants, husband and wife, provided that the latter would purchase appellee’s residence at 320 North Oak Avenue, Clifton Heights, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, for the total consideration of $16,000.

The terms of the settlement…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sanders v. BrockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  2. Tudesco Et Ux. v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  3. Streeper v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
  4. Keller v. N. J. Fidelity & Plate Glass InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Roberts v. RoeschSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Traylor v. GraftonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  2. Stein v. BruceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Laughlin v. Baltalden, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. Hanrahan v. Audubon Builders, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Holt's Cigar Co. v. 222 Liberty AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

19 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