Pflaum v. McClintock

18 A. 734, 130 Pa. 369, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1196
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 11, 1889·No. No. 101·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

There is nothing upon this record to show that the court below did not properly exercise its discretion in refusing to open the judgment. There was nothing before it but the unsupported allegations in the petition filed by the defendants. Nor are the circumstances referred to in the petition, even were they established to the satisfaction of the court below, sufficient, to justify it in disturbing the judgment. The bond in question' was given for a good consideration, viz., the settlement of a fornication and bastardy case ; and the fact that it was executed by James H. McClintock while confined in jail, in the absence of any constraint or duress practiced upon him in procuring the bond, was unimportant. The “ duress ” referred to in the petition was the “ duress ” of the law, not of the obligee named in said bond. The case is wholly devoid of merit, and is

Affirmed.

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

Pflaum v. McClintock, 18 A. 734, 130 Pa. 369, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1196 (Pa. 1889).

18 A. 734 (Pflaum v. McClintock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Domestic Relations Section for Diehl v. Mulhern
594 A.2d 692 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Commonwealth v. Luciano
208 A.2d 881 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Fiege v. Boehm
123 A.2d 316 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1956)
Meredith v. Knox
83 A. 703 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1912)
Harrison Township v. Addison
96 N.E. 146 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
Koch v. Biesecker
7 Pa. Super. 37 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)