Cake v. Cake

29 A. 797, 162 Pa. 584, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1024
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 11, 1894·No. Appeal, No. 66·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the decree discharging the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and the defendant let in to a defence. Our examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that there is nothing in either of the specifications of error that would justify a reversal. The learned president of the common pleas rightly held that Minnie E. Cake, the payee in the note and original plaintiff in the judgment, being dead, the defendant Joseph W. Cake is not a competent witness, and without his testimony there is not sufficient evidence to justify the court in making the rule to show cause etc. absolute. There is nothing in the case that requires discussion.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

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

Cake v. Cake, 29 A. 797, 162 Pa. 584, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1024 (Pa. 1894).

29 A. 797 (Cake v. Cake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Estate of Cecchine
485 A.2d 454 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Wright v. Wilson
154 F.2d 616 (Third Circuit, 1946)
Berger v. Nagle
13 Pa. D. & C. 21 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1929)
Patterson v. Hughes
84 A. 829 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Proper v. Campbell
15 Pa. Super. 153 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1900)