McGarrity v. McMahon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 399, Jan. T., M912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 3875, discharging defendant’s rule to show cause why judgment should not be opened and the defendant let into a defense, in case •of Joseph McGarrity, trading as Joseph McGarrity & Company, v. Winifred McMahon. Rule to show cause why judgment should not be opened and. the defendant let into a defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 399, Jan. T., M912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 3875, discharging defendant’s rule to show cause why judgment should not be opened and the defendant let into a defense, in case •of Joseph McGarrity, trading as Joseph McGarrity & Company, v. Winifred McMahon. Rule to show cause why judgment should not be opened and. the defendant let into a defense. From the record it appeared that Frank McMahon was the holder of a retail liquor- license at the northwest corner of Second and Spruce streets, in the City of Philadelphia, and was…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
While the court below gave no reason for refusing fo open the judgment against the appellant, it is safe to assume that her petition was dismissed because it appeared from the depositions that she had given her obligation to the appellee as an original undertaking on her part, for a valuable consideration passing directly to her, and not for an antecedent debt of her husband. It is for this reason that the appeal is dismissed with costs.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Newtown T. T. Co. v. Underw'd (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Lillis v. Krack, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1940
- Zuch v. Gorman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1926