James v. Crownover
6 A. 42, 3 Sadler 73, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 785
Opinion
There was no error in the refusal of the court to strike this judgment from the record. The note upon which it was entered contains an express confession of judgment. Not only did attorneys for the maker of the note appear and confess judgment against him, but the prothonotary also entered judgment on the note against him.
The record showed no such defect or error as to require the court to strike off the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James v. Crownover, 6 A. 42, 3 Sadler 73, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 785 (Pa. 1886).
6 A. 42 (James v. Crownover) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miser v. Centurion of Arizona LLC
D. Arizona, 2025
(PS) Santillan v. California Bar Examiners
E.D. California, 2024
Debbs v. AM PM Gas Station
E.D. California, 2022
Smith v. Brangwynne
S.D. California, 2019
Health Insurance Association of America, Inc. v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services
23 F.3d 412 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)
Swany v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District
720 F. Supp. 764 (N.D. California, 1989)
Smith v. Safeguard Mutual Insurance
239 A.2d 824 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1968)