Riedrich v. Mistarz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Riedrich v. Mistarz

13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 73, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 418

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 24, 1940·No. Appeal, 128·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

We are all of opinion that the court below was not guilty of an abuse of discretion in opening the above judgment and permitting the defendant to enter his defense. The evidence as a whole justified this action. But as the defendant admitted owing $97.08 of the principal of said judgment, with interest from May 15, 1931, the order should be modified so as to open the judgment as to all in excess of that amount.

As so modified, it is affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam,

We are all of opinion that the court below was not guilty of an abuse of discretion in opening the above judgment and permitting the defendant to enter his defense. The evidence as a whole justified this action. But as the defendant admitted owing $97.08 of the principal of said judgment, with interest from May 15, 1931, the order should be modified so as to open the judgment as to all in excess of that amount.

As so modified, it is affirmed.

Riedrich v. Mistarz, 13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 73, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 418 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

13 A.2d 106 (Riedrich v. Mistarz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.