Hickernell's Appeal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Hickernell's Appeal

90 Pa. 328, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 254

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 7, 1879

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 Pa. 328 (Hickernell's Appeal) 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.

Bluebook

Hickernell's Appeal, 90 Pa. 328, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 254 (Pa. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Pur Curiam.

It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said in Earley’s Appeal, ante, p. 321, that on rules to open judgments entered on warrants of attorney, the courts still have the.right to exercise their discretion upon the depositions. The appeal was given by the Act of 1877, in order that the exercise of that discretion should be reviewed in this court. Before that act there wTas no appeal, and the decision of the lower court was final. The allegation of the appellant here was, that at the time the bond and warrant was executed, the obligee promised to enter it up, so as to be a lien on the real estate of John Hickernell. ■ There was some evidence of this. We think, however, upon a careful examination of the whole testimony, it did not appear to have been made the condition upon which the bond was executed. Without this is shown, the legal rights of the holder of the bond ought not to be affected by the parol evidence of loose conversations. Had the surety in this case desired that the bond should be entered up, a notice to do so would have been sufficient. The legislature, recognising the danger of parol evidence in such cases, has provided", by the Act of May 14th 1874, that such notice shall be in writing.

Order affirmed. Appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant, and record remitted.

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

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Pur Curiam.

It is unnecessary to repeat what has been said in Earley’s Appeal, ante, p. 321, that on rules to open judgments entered on warrants of attorney, the courts still have the.right to exercise their discretion upon the depositions. The appeal was given by the Act of 1877, in order that the exercise of that discretion should be reviewed in this court. Before that act there wTas no appeal, and the decision of the lower court was final. The allegation of the appellant here was, that at the time the bond and warrant was executed, the obligee promised to enter it up, so as to be a lien on the real estate of John Hickernell. ■ There was some evidence of this. We think, however, upon a careful examination of the whole testimony, it did not appear to have been made the condition upon which the bond was executed. Without this is shown, the legal rights of the holder of the bond ought not to be affected by the parol evidence of loose conversations. Had the surety in this case desired that the bond should be entered up, a notice to do so would have been sufficient. The legislature, recognising the danger of parol evidence in such cases, has provided", by the Act of May 14th 1874, that such notice shall be in writing.

Order affirmed. Appeal dismissed at the costs of appellant, and record remitted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Pa. 328, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickernells-appeal-pa-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack