Light v. Sholl

Citations

• 32 Pa. Super. 133
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 301

Syllabus

<p>Judgment — Opening judgment — Forgery—Evidence—Discretion of court.</p> <p>Although the defendant in a confessed judgment testifies that his signature is a forgery, and there is opposing testimony, there is no inflexible rule which compels the court to open the judgment. Even in such a case the judge should exercise a sound discretion, after a careful consideration of the character and effect of the testimony.</p> <p>On a rule to open a judgment, the defendant alleged that the note upon which the judgment was entered was a forgery. The testimony upon this subject was that of the defendant herself and a comparison of the signature to the note in question with others which she admitted to be genuine. On the other hand, her sister, who was the subscribing witness to the note, and the plaintiff himself both testified unequivocally to the fact that she signed the note. A brother also testified that she admitted to him that she had signed a note for a settlement of $300, which was the amount of the note in controversy. The defendant was an illiterate woman, and testified that she wrote her “name poorly.” Held, that the court committed no error in discharging the rule to open the judgment.</p>