Kunkle's Appeals

107 Pa. 368, 4 Pennyp. 146, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 303
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 16, 1884·No. Nos. 154 and 155·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was filed October 27th, 1884.

Per Curiam.

The claim made by the appellant shows that he is in no condition to invoke the aid of a court of equity. He affirms his own turpitude in the very contracts from which he seeks to be relieved. He entered into them after due consideration for the purpose of gain, and with full [370] knowledge of the unlawful character of the transactions. He cannot now be relieved from the judgments which he authorized to be entered against him, by showing his own illegal and immoral acts: Holt v. Green, 23 P. F. S. 198; Gill v. Henry, 14 Norris 388; Winton v. Freeman, 6 Out. 366. The court was clearly right in refusing to open the judgments and in discharging the rules.

Decrees affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the appellant in each case.

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

Kunkle's Appeals, 107 Pa. 368, 4 Pennyp. 146, 1884 Pa. LEXIS 303 (Pa. 1884).

107 Pa. 368 (Kunkle's Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

1ST NAT. BK. of MILLVILLE v. Horwatt
162 A.2d 60 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Brady v. Laskowsky
90 Pa. Super. 370 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Dolan v. Burke
7 Pa. D. & C. 165 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Levine v. Pittsburgh State Bank
127 A. 68 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)