Hunter ex rel. Holgate v. Mahoney
Hunter ex rel. Holgate v. Mahoney
Opinion of the Court
The only specification of error is, that the court below erred in opening the judgment. This is an equitable proceeding, as we have repeatedly said, and we find nothing in the case to show that the discretion of the court below was not properly exercised. The facts alleged in the defendant’s petition, if true, were sufficient to justify the action of the court. No answer was filed by the plaintiff to this petition. The plaintiff’s allegations, therefore, stood confessed, and this alone would have justified the court below in opening the judgment. It is true there was an answer filed by the use plaintiff, but it referred to matters of which lie could have had no knowledge, except by hearsay. An examination of the depositions, taken for and against the rule to open the judgment, leaves us in no doubt as to the propriety of the action of the court below.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hunter, to use of Holgate v. Mahoney
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Judgment note — Opening of judgment — Discretion of court. The opening of a judgment is an equitable proceeding within the discretion of the court, and the Supreme Court, on appeal, will reverse only if it appear that this discretion was not properly exercised. Defendant’s petition for a rule to open judgment, entered on a judgment note, averred payment of the note. The note had been assigned. No answer was made by the plaintiff, but the use plaintiff in an answer denied the allegations in the petition. Depositions taken in support of the rule showed a conflict of testimony as to the question of payment. Meld, that there was no doubt of the propriety of the action of the court below in opening the judgment.