Ackler v. Miller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Ackler v. Miller

74 Pa. Super. 129, 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 109

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 28, 1920

DocketAppeal, No. 217

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Pa. Super. 129 (Ackler v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackler v. Miller, 74 Pa. Super. 129, 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 109 (Pa. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order of the court below discharging a rule to open a judgment that had been regularly entered. An application of this character is addressed to the sound discretion of the court below, and in the appellate court, the question is whether there has been any abuse of that discretion. This, of course, must be a sound, judicial one, and in sustaining a judgment it must be exercised upon the facts and circumstances before the court, after they have been heard and duly considered: Dunbar v. Lutton, 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 77, and authorities there cited. The disputed facts in this case were fully disclosed by depositions, and after being fully considered, the excuse urged by the defendant for not more promptly moving to make his defense when he had his day in court, was held to be insufficient.

We find no such reversible error in this record, and the appeal is dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order of the court below discharging a rule to open a judgment that had been regularly entered. An application of this character is addressed to the sound discretion of the court below, and in the appellate court, the question is whether there has been any abuse of that discretion. This, of course, must be a sound, judicial one, and in sustaining a judgment it must be exercised upon the facts and circumstances before the court, after they have been heard and duly considered: Dunbar v. Lutton, 72 Pa. Superior Ct. 77, and authorities there cited. The disputed facts in this case were fully disclosed by depositions, and after being fully considered, the excuse urged by the defendant for not more promptly moving to make his defense when he had his day in court, was held to be insufficient.

We find no such reversible error in this record, and the appeal is dismissed at the costs of appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Pa. Super. 129, 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackler-v-miller-pasuperct-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack