Ulrich Et Ux. v. Nimetz Et Ux

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Ulrich Et Ux. v. Nimetz Et Ux

86 Pa. Super. 121, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 2, 1925

DocketAppeal 21

StatusPublished

This text of 86 Pa. Super. 121 (Ulrich Et Ux. v. Nimetz Et Ux) 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

Ulrich Et Ux. v. Nimetz Et Ux, 86 Pa. Super. 121, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69 (Pa. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This is an appeal from an order of the court below making absolute a rule to open a judgment entered by confession, under a warrant in a bond which accompanied a mortgage. We find no material difference in the allegations of the petition to open the judgment in this case, and the evidence produced in support thereof, and the allegations and evidence with which we have dealt in an opinion this day filed in the case of Eagler v. Cherewfka, No. 14, February Term, 1925. The order of the court must be reversed for the reasons stated in the opinion referred to. The defendants failed to produce any evidence which would entitle them to have the question of their liability submitted to a jury.

*122 The order of the court below making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened is reversed, and said rule is discharged and the judgment reinstated.

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

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This is an appeal from an order of the court below making absolute a rule to open a judgment entered by confession, under a warrant in a bond which accompanied a mortgage. We find no material difference in the allegations of the petition to open the judgment in this case, and the evidence produced in support thereof, and the allegations and evidence with which we have dealt in an opinion this day filed in the case of Eagler v. Cherewfka, No. 14, February Term, 1925. The order of the court must be reversed for the reasons stated in the opinion referred to. The defendants failed to produce any evidence which would entitle them to have the question of their liability submitted to a jury.

*122 The order of the court below making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened is reversed, and said rule is discharged and the judgment reinstated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Pa. Super. 121, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulrich-et-ux-v-nimetz-et-ux-pasuperct-1925.