Patterson v. Pyle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Patterson v. Pyle

17 A. 6, 1 Monag. 351, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1307

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 25, 1889·No. No. 82·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The court below committed no-error in striking off this judgment. There was no authority in the lease to confess a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Had the.confession of judgment followed the lease there would have been no room for objection upon this ground. The judgment was-properly stricken off, however, for the further reason that there was - nothing upon the record to show that the defendant had broken any of the covenants in the lease, and the law will not presume that he * has done so.

Judgment affirmed. T. E. P.

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

Per Curiam,

The court below committed no-error in striking off this judgment. There was no authority in the lease to confess a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Had the.confession of judgment followed the lease there would have been no room for objection upon this ground. The judgment was-properly stricken off, however, for the further reason that there was - nothing upon the record to show that the defendant had broken any of the covenants in the lease, and the law will not presume that he * has done so.

Judgment affirmed. T. E. P.

Patterson v. Pyle, 17 A. 6, 1 Monag. 351, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1307 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

17 A. 6 (Patterson v. Pyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related