Anderson's Appeal

1 A. 329, 1 Sadler 45, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 660
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 5, 1885·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The rule in this case was to show cause why the judgment should not be opened. The only fact proved to justify the opening of the judgment was the illegal interest charged in the note. Beaty v. Bordwell, 91 Pa. 438. That interest has been deducted and the appellants fully discharged therefrom. If all’ the other alleged equities did exist they are not to be asserted by-opening the judgment. No motion was made to strike off the judgment. If it had been, the evidence is insufficient to justify such action. The other alleged claims are not the subject of’ set-off against the judgment.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.

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

Anderson's Appeal, 1 A. 329, 1 Sadler 45, 1885 Pa. LEXIS 660 (Pa. 1885).

1 A. 329 (Anderson's Appeal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Beaty v. Bordwell
91 Pa. 438 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880)