Woelfel v. Hammer
28 A. 146, 159 Pa. 446, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 863
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 15, 1894·No. Appeal, No. 262·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
The court below was right in refusing to open the judgment and let the defendants into a defence. The decree discharging the rule to show cause should therefore be affirmed.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant, J. B. Hammer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Woelfel v. Hammer, 28 A. 146, 159 Pa. 446, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 863 (Pa. 1894).
28 A. 146 (Woelfel v. Hammer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Marshall v. Marvin H. Anderson Construction Co.
167 N.W.2d 724 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1969)