Weaver v. Painter

3 A. 839, 2 Sadler 395, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 605
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 10, 1886·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

There was clearly no error in refusing to strike from the record a judgment regular on its face. Under the evidence, the opening of the judgment to the extent of $50, the sum in dispute, is certainly quite as much relief as the plaintiffs in error are entitled to in equity.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Weaver v. Painter, 3 A. 839, 2 Sadler 395, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 605 (Pa. 1886).

3 A. 839 (Weaver v. Painter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keystone Bank of Spangler v. Booth
6 A.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)