Pflaum v. McClintock

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Pflaum v. McClintock, 130 Pa. 369 (Pa. 1889)
18 A. 734; 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1196
Clark, Green, Lams, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Will

Pflaum v. McClintock

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

There is nothing upon this record to show that the court below did not properly exercise its discretion in refusing to open the judgment. There was nothing before it but the unsupported allegations in the petition filed by the defendants. Nor are the circumstances referred to in the petition, even were they established to the satisfaction of the court below, sufficient, to justify it in disturbing the judgment. The bond in question' was given for a good consideration, viz., the settlement of a fornication and bastardy case ; and the fact that it was executed by James H. McClintock while confined in jail, in the absence of any constraint or duress practiced upon him in procuring the bond, was unimportant. The “ duress ” referred to in the petition was the “ duress ” of the law, not of the obligee named in said bond. The case is wholly devoid of merit, and is

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
M. PFLAUM, ADMR. v. J. H. McCLINTOCK
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
(а) The petition of the defendant in a judgment upon a bond, given in settlement of a criminal prosecution for fornication and bastardy, averred that the bond had been executed while the defendant was in prison under arrest, and was conditioned for the support of the child to be born. (б) It was averred, also, that the obligor was innocent of the offence charged, and that no living child had been born of the obligee, who had died'unmarried and without issue, before judgment had been entered upon the bond. 1. In such case, the bond in question was given for a good consideration, the duress complained of was the duress of the law, and it was not error to refuse the petitioner a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, etc.