Rishel v. Crouse
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 75, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, B. F. Crouse, from order of C. P. Snyder Co., Feb. T., 1898, No. 93, discharging rule to open judgment in favor of Chas. R. Rishel, admr. of E. R. Greegor, deceased. Rule to open judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 75, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, B. F. Crouse, from order of C. P. Snyder Co., Feb. T., 1898, No. 93, discharging rule to open judgment in favor of Chas. R. Rishel, admr. of E. R. Greegor, deceased. Rule to open judgment. Before McClure, P. J. The facts appear from the following opinion : “ By his solemn obligation under seal, bearing date the 19th da}”- of August, 1885, B. F. Grouse, the defendant, promised to pay one jmar after the date thereof, to the order of E. R. Greegor, his mother-in-law, $1,500 for value received, with warrant of attorney for confession of judgment, etc.…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The learned judge of the court below filed no less than three opinions upon the several applications of the defendant to have this judgment opened and to have rehearings. We have examined patiently the testimony given on both sides and are constrained to say, not only that we do not think it a proper case in which to interfere with the discretion of the court bellow, but also that we fully approve of all that was done by the *9learned court. The testimony given in the attempt to impeach the judgment was entirely too unsubstantial and infirm in character to warrant any interference…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Anderson v. BestSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Fidelity Bank v. Act of America, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Guzzi v. Czaja Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Pollard & Brant, Inc. v. SteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Cooke v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.