Laws v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Laws v. Maxwell

116 A. 520, 273 Pa. 8, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 502

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 6, 1922

DocketAppeal, No. 132

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A. 520 (Laws v. Maxwell) 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

Laws v. Maxwell, 116 A. 520, 273 Pa. 8, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 502 (Pa. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal to open a judgment entered on a note under seal signed by defendant. The evidence shows that defendant worked for use-plaintiff; he proved a defaulter, and the obligation in suit was given to cover the balance due his employer. The note was taken in the name of the legal plaintiff, Francis S. Laws, at the special solicitation and request of defendant, who feared that, if judgment for such a large amount were entered against him by his employer, just as he, defendant, was leaving a position which he had occupied for some years, it might cause suspicion and impair his chances of obtaining other employment. This simple statement of facts disposes of the necessity for discussing the points of law so earnestly urged upon us by ap[10]*10pellant’s counsel, and it is necessary to say only that, after reading the testimony, we are not convinced of error.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal to open a judgment entered on a note under seal signed by defendant. The evidence shows that defendant worked for use-plaintiff; he proved a defaulter, and the obligation in suit was given to cover the balance due his employer. The note was taken in the name of the legal plaintiff, Francis S. Laws, at the special solicitation and request of defendant, who feared that, if judgment for such a large amount were entered against him by his employer, just as he, defendant, was leaving a position which he had occupied for some years, it might cause suspicion and impair his chances of obtaining other employment. This simple statement of facts disposes of the necessity for discussing the points of law so earnestly urged upon us by ap[10]*10pellant’s counsel, and it is necessary to say only that, after reading the testimony, we are not convinced of error.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A. 520, 273 Pa. 8, 1922 Pa. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laws-v-maxwell-pa-1922.