Riedrich v. Mistarz

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Riedrich v. Mistarz

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

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 24, 1940

DocketAppeal, 128

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.2d 106 (Riedrich v. Mistarz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 73, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riedrich-v-mistarz-pasuperct-1940.