Fogel Refrigerator Co. v. Oteri
This text of 137 A.2d 225 (Fogel Refrigerator Co. v. Oteri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion
The sole question presented on this appeal, is whether the court below erred in refusing to open a judgment entered on a promissory note against appellants.
A petition to open a judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court below and, unless an abuse of such discretion appears, its action will not be reversed: Ehnes v. Wagner, 388 Pa. 102, 130 A. 2d 171; Gagnon v. Speback, 383 Pa. 359, 118 A. 2d 744.
Our examination of the instant record indicates no abuse of discretion on the part of the court below.
The order is affirmed on the able opinion of President Judge Eugene V. Alessandroni reported in 10 Pa. D. & C. 2d 511.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
137 A.2d 225, 391 Pa. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogel-refrigerator-co-v-oteri-pa-1958.