Freeman v. Sanner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Freeman v. Sanner

11 Pa. Super. 42, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 28, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 66

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Pa. Super. 42 (Freeman v. Sanner) 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

Freeman v. Sanner, 11 Pa. Super. 42, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102 (Pa. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Smith, J.,

In presenting an appeal to this court from the decision of the common pleas refusing to open a judgment, the appellant must show wherein the legal discretion vested in that tribunal has been abused.

It is a mistake to assume that this court will interfere with the judgment merely because part of the testimony submitted, considered apart from all the evidence offered, would warrant a reversal. It must clearly appear that the conclusion of the court below, based on all the testimony in the case, was erroneous. The right to decide whether a judgment shall be opened rests, in the first instance, with the common pleas, and the correctness of its decision is to be passed upon by the appellate court. Here the conclusion of the common pleas on the application to open the judgment is well supported by the weight of the evidence. The learned judge, in his opinion discharging the rule, says : “ On the evidence submitted, we could not sustain a verdict for the defendant.” With this view we fully concur after an examination of the notes of evidence sent here. The determination of the court below will not be set aside unless it plainly appears that error has been committed in the result thus reached. Here the discretion of the court appears to have been properly exercised. See Kistler v. Scheirer, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 220.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Smith, J.,

In presenting an appeal to this court from the decision of the common pleas refusing to open a judgment, the appellant must show wherein the legal discretion vested in that tribunal has been abused.

It is a mistake to assume that this court will interfere with the judgment merely because part of the testimony submitted, considered apart from all the evidence offered, would warrant a reversal. It must clearly appear that the conclusion of the court below, based on all the testimony in the case, was erroneous. The right to decide whether a judgment shall be opened rests, in the first instance, with the common pleas, and the correctness of its decision is to be passed upon by the appellate court. Here the conclusion of the common pleas on the application to open the judgment is well supported by the weight of the evidence. The learned judge, in his opinion discharging the rule, says : “ On the evidence submitted, we could not sustain a verdict for the defendant.” With this view we fully concur after an examination of the notes of evidence sent here. The determination of the court below will not be set aside unless it plainly appears that error has been committed in the result thus reached. Here the discretion of the court appears to have been properly exercised. See Kistler v. Scheirer, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 220.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Pa. Super. 42, 1899 Pa. Super. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-sanner-pasuperct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack