M. Darragh & Co. v. Bigger

33 A. 273, 172 Pa. 89, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 735
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 4, 1895
DocketAppeal, No. 241
StatusPublished

This text of 33 A. 273 (M. Darragh & Co. v. Bigger) 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
M. Darragh & Co. v. Bigger, 33 A. 273, 172 Pa. 89, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 735 (Pa. 1895).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole complaint is “that the court erred in opening the judgment as to P. H. Stevenson, deceased, and permitting his personal representatives to make defense to the judgment.” An examination of the testimony that was introduced in support of the petition to open the judgment etc. has satisfied us that it was quite sufficient to justify the action complained of. Discussion of the testimony, as the case now stands, is neither [91]*91necessary nor desirable. It is enough to say that it is quite sufficient to justify the court in opening the judgment and sending the case to a jury.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellants.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A. 273, 172 Pa. 89, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-darragh-co-v-bigger-pa-1895.