Voegler v. Klingensmith Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Voegler v. Klingensmith Co.

88 Pa. Super. 34, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 21, 1926

DocketAppeal 110

StatusPublished

This text of 88 Pa. Super. 34 (Voegler v. Klingensmith Co.) 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

Voegler v. Klingensmith Co., 88 Pa. Super. 34, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112 (Pa. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per. Curiam,

The judgment in this case was entered by confession, under a warrant of attorney contained in a note. The appellant moved to open the judgment, alleging that his signature had been procured by misrepresentation. The plaintiff filed an answer specifically denying all the material allegations of fact contained in the petition of the appellant. Depositions were taken by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The testimony on the facts material to the rights of the parties, practically amounted to no more than oath against oath. This being the case we would not be warranted in holding, that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to open the judgment.

The order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

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

Per. Curiam,

The judgment in this case was entered by confession, under a warrant of attorney contained in a note. The appellant moved to open the judgment, alleging that his signature had been procured by misrepresentation. The plaintiff filed an answer specifically denying all the material allegations of fact contained in the petition of the appellant. Depositions were taken by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The testimony on the facts material to the rights of the parties, practically amounted to no more than oath against oath. This being the case we would not be warranted in holding, that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to open the judgment.

The order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Pa. Super. 34, 1926 Pa. Super. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voegler-v-klingensmith-co-pasuperct-1926.