Shoup v. Shoup

54 A. 476, 205 Pa. 22, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 503
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 5, 1903
DocketAppeal, No. 165
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 54 A. 476 (Shoup v. Shoup) 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
Shoup v. Shoup, 54 A. 476, 205 Pa. 22, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 503 (Pa. 1903).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ms. Justice Potter,

The appeal in this case is from an order of court striking off the satisfaction of a judgment. In legal effect, therefore, it amounts to nothing more than a common-law writ of certiorari : Rand v. King, 134 Pa. 641. It is therefore to be disposed of as such.

The record shows the entry of a judgment D. S. B. for 118,000, upon a single bill filed, dated November 13,1899, payable one year after date. Upon February 11, 1901, the judgment was marked satisfied in full by the plaintiff. Upon July 19, 1902, the court granted a rule to show cause why the entry of satisfaction of the judgment should not be stricken off, and the lien of the judgment be restored. Upon September 2,1902, after argument, this rule was made absolute. The judgment therefore stands now just as it did before the entry of satisfaction was made. Both plaintiff and defendant are in precisely the same position as then. If the judgment has been paid in whole or in part, or if the defendant has any other good defense, either in law or in equity, he is at liberty to apply to the court for an opportunity to present it. If the plaintiff was induced to enter satisfaction of the judgment upon the record by fraud, or by mistake, the court undoubtedly had the right upon proof of the facts, on notice to the parties, to strike off such improper entry.

The motion to strike off the entry of satisfaction was addressed to the discretion of the court below, and the exercise of that discretion is not the subject of review: Murphy v. Flood, 2 Grant, 411; McKinney v. Fritz, 2 W. N. C. 173.

As the facts are not before us, and the record shows no apparent error, the proceedings of the court below are affirmed.

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

Related

A-1 Discount Co. v. Nardi
735 A.2d 121 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1999)
Beck v. Beck
646 A.2d 589 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Linde Enterprises, Inc. v. Hazelton City Authority
602 A.2d 897 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Neustein v. Insurance Placement Facility
412 A.2d 608 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Epstein v. Kramer
76 A.2d 212 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Brummer v. Linker
196 A. 834 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Campbell v. Erb
35 Pa. Super. 436 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A. 476, 205 Pa. 22, 1903 Pa. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shoup-v-shoup-pa-1903.