Gump v. Goodwin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 48, Oct. T., 1895, by defendants, from order of C. P. Greene Co., April T., 1894, No. 156, discharging rule to open judgment. Rule to open judgment entered upon a bond with warrant of attorney to confess judgment. Before Mestrezat, J. From the record it appeared that on December 20, 1898, G. M. Gump & Company sold to defendants a stock of goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 48, Oct. T., 1895, by defendants, from order of C. P. Greene Co., April T., 1894, No. 156, discharging rule to open judgment. Rule to open judgment entered upon a bond with warrant of attorney to confess judgment. Before Mestrezat, J. From the record it appeared that on December 20, 1898, G. M. Gump & Company sold to defendants a stock of goods. The defendants agree to pay therefor by a conveyance of real estate valued at five thousand dollars, and the balance of the invoice of the goods above five thousand dollars, by cash payments in monthly installments of five hundred dollars…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
In cases such as this, — appealing largely to the discretion of the court below, — where oral testimony of witnesses is frequently heard and passed upon, an opinion should always be filed by the court setting forth, at least briefly, its findings of fact and the grounds of its decision. We are not in a position to properly weigh the testimony or consider its credibility with the same discrimination as the court below, and should therefore have the benefit of such an o'pinion to guide us in determining whether in disposing of the case in that court there was such abuse of discretion…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Dinsmore v. DinsmoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Skinner v. ChaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- W. W. Blake Tobacco Co. v. PosluszsySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- McPherson v. ColeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Johnson v. PetersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915