Anderson v. Best
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 27, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Warren Co., June T., 1894, No. 89, entering satisfaction of judgment. Rule to open judgment. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was in directing the judgment to be marked satisfied.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The appellant had a judgment entered upon a bond and warrant of attorney, and both were regular on their face. There was therefore no jurisdiction for a summary order of satisfaction, except under the act of March 14, 1876, P. L. 7, which is confined to clear cases of actual payment: Atkinson v. Harrison, 153 Pa. 472.
*500The bond was an absolute obligation for. the payment of money, but the defendant filed a petition to open the judgment, nominally on the ground that the bond was without consideration, but really setting up that it was given “ for the purpose of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bailey v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Atkinson v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Rishel v. CrouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Burkholder's v. PlankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3Cited by26 opinions
- Curry v. Bacharach Quality Shops, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Muir v. KaneWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- Piper v. QueeneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Poelcher v. ZinkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Shinn v. StemlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.