Vietor v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Vietor v. Johnson

24 A. 173, 148 Pa. 583, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1032

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 25, 1892

DocketAppeals, Nos. 353 and 354

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 24 A. 173 (Vietor v. Johnson) 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

Vietor v. Johnson, 24 A. 173, 148 Pa. 583, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1032 (Pa. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We cannot sustain any of the specifications of error. The principal contention was over the judgment of Yietor & Achclis, which the appellants contended was a void instrument, and did not warrant the entering of judgment and the issuing of execution: See second specification. We cannot say that it was a void instrument. It was a note for $12,500, payable to the maker or bearer, with a confession of judgment for that sum. Upon this note judgment was entered by the firm, Vie-tor & Aehelis, bearers, through their attorney. The consideration of the note was the subject of inquiry, both by the auditor and the court below, aided by the verdict of the jury in a feigned issue. We think it was entitled to participate in the distribution.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

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

Per Curiam,

We cannot sustain any of the specifications of error. The principal contention was over the judgment of Yietor & Achclis, which the appellants contended was a void instrument, and did not warrant the entering of judgment and the issuing of execution: See second specification. We cannot say that it was a void instrument. It was a note for $12,500, payable to the maker or bearer, with a confession of judgment for that sum. Upon this note judgment was entered by the firm, Vie-tor & Aehelis, bearers, through their attorney. The consideration of the note was the subject of inquiry, both by the auditor and the court below, aided by the verdict of the jury in a feigned issue. We think it was entitled to participate in the distribution.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A. 173, 148 Pa. 583, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vietor-v-johnson-pa-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack