Snively v. Fisher

Citations

• 21 Pa. Super. 56
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 307

Syllabus

<p>Judgment — Opening judgment — Reformation of note — Evidence.</p> <p>Where the execution of a judgment note is admitted and the proceeding to open the judgment entered on the note is, in effect, an application to reform the note, a mere conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff and the testimony of the defendant, standing alone, is not sufficient..</p> <p>In an application by a son to open a judgment entered on a note signed by his mother and himself, it appeared that the note began with the capital letter “ I,” followed by the name of the mother, and that the word “attest” was in the left-hand corner. The son testified that he intended to sign the note as a witness, and not as a co-obligor with his mother, and that by mistake he wrote his name in the blank indicated in the paperas the place for the signature of an obligor. The obligee testified positively that the son signed the note as surety, and that it was so understood. The son prepared the note and did not sign it in haste or without inspection. The mother testified in her examination in chief that the son signed only as a witness, but on cross-examination she showed that she had no distinct recollection of the facts. Held, that the court below rightfully exercised its discretionary power in refusing to open the judgment.</p> <p>Principal and surely — Judgment note — Discharge of surety.</p> <p>A promise made by the payee of a judgment note to the principal obligor of the note that he will not enter the note of record will not discharge the surety on the note where no consideration has been shown for the promise. •</p>