Legal Opinion

Michaels v. Moritz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 26, 1938No. Appeal, 55PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Parker, J.,

The court below made absolute a rule to show cause why a judgment entered on a note containing a power of attorney to confess judgment should not be opened. The plaintiff has appealed.

“An application to open a judgment entered upon a warrant of attorney is an equitable proceeding governed by equitable principles and addressed to the sound discretion of the court. On appeal we consider only whether the court kept within the bounds of its discretionary power”: Mutual B. & L. Assn. v. Walukiewicz, 322 Pa. 240, 185 A. 648. The Supreme Court has in many cases recently said…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n v. WalukiewiczSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Johnson v. NippertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Tressler v. EmerickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Stewart v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Pitts v. WhiteSupreme Court of Delaware · 1954
  2. Pitts v. WhiteSuperior Court of Delaware · 1954
  3. Miller v. MastrocolaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Quinn v. Gutentag, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1943
  5. Shaffer v. Rose, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bedford County1948

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

Powered by the Exa API