Bank v. Fulmor
Citations
- 124 Pa. 337
- 17 A. 2
- 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1039
Syllabus
<p>1. An application to open a judgment, entered on warrant of attorney or on a judgment note, is addressed to the equitable powers of the court below, and upon an appeal to the Supreme Court, under the act of April 4, 1877, P. L. 53, the question is, whether the court below rightly exercised its discretion upon the evidence.</p> <p>2. It is a mistake to suppose that the court to which the application is made cannot judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, but, in every case where there is a conflict of testimony, must send the case to a jury.</p> <p>3. While the precise measure of proof which should move a ohan-1 cellor to open a judgment is not laid down, yet he may not act at allj unless there is more than oath against oath, and, when there is morelhau' this, and it comes to a question of the weight of the evidence, it is for him to decide as to which side the scales incline.</p> <p>4. If in doubt upon this question, or as to the credibility of the witnesses, and if the testimony taken would justify a submission to a jury, the court in its discretion may make an order to open and for an issue, but if on the testimony so taken the court would set aside aj verdict for the defendant, the application to open should be refused. j</p> <p>5. Where on a petition praying that an execution be stayed a,nd the) judgment opened, it is ordered, after hearing on the testimony taken, that the execution and levy be suspended and an issue directed to determine whether the judgment is satisfied or not, no appeal will lie from such order under the act of April 4, 1877, P. L. 53.</p> <p>6. But if such order is followed by a verdict of the jury upon the issue, that the judgment in question is satisfied, the entry of judgment upon the verdict is the first step in the cause to which appeal or writ of error will lie, and, as in this ease there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury and to sustain their verdict, the submission of the ease to the jur
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding interlocutory a stay of execution since it was ordered merely to allow for further investigation of an issue before the court
- holding interlocutory a stay of execution since it was ordered merely to allow for further investigation of an issue before the court
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Stbrrett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
72 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Samuel Hird & Sons, Inc. v. City of GarfieldNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1965-03-11· cited 144×
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1958-05-26· cited 93×
- Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1959-03-09· cited 92×
- Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-04-25· cited 71×
- Charles D. Kaier Co. v. O'brienSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1902-03-24· cited 43×
- Augustine v. WolfSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1906-05-24· cited 34×
- Mahon v. American Cas. Co. of ReadingNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1961-01-06· cited 29×
- In Re the Accounting of ThompsonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1969-02-18· cited 24×
- Joseph v. LesnevichNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1959-07-15· cited 23×
- Johnson v. Christ HospitalNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1964-07-27· cited 21×
- Blauvelt v. KemonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1900-05-23· cited 21×
- Volk v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1911-01-03· cited 19×
- Dressler v. MayerNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1952-10-20· cited 16×
- Zotta v. Otis Elevator Co.New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1960-12-05· cited 15×
- Cherry v. Empire Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1965-03-16· cited 15×
- Cloud v. MarkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1898-07-21· cited 14×
- Wright v. LinhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1914-01-05· cited 13×
- NY, SUSQUEHANNA AND WRR CO. v. VermeulenSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1965-05-17· cited 12×
- Given v. GivenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-07-28· cited 12×
- Oliver v. LawsonNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1966-10-17· cited 11×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.