Rishel v. Crouse

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Rishel v. Crouse, 162 Pa. 3 (Pa. 1894)
29 A. 123; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 932
Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Williams

Rishel v. Crouse

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The learned judge of the court below filed no less than three opinions upon the several applications of the defendant to have this judgment opened and to have rehearings. We have examined patiently the testimony given on both sides and are constrained to say, not only that we do not think it a proper case in which to interfere with the discretion of the court bellow, but also that we fully approve of all that was done by the *9learned court. The testimony given in the attempt to impeach the judgment was entirely too unsubstantial and infirm in character to warrant any interference with it, and the testimony given in its support convinces us that there was ample money consideration for it.

The order of the court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
Rishel, Admr. of Greegor v. Crouse
Cited By
13 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Opening of judgment — Discretion—Review—Evidence. On an application to open a judgment entered by confession, defendant claimed that the note had been given to his wife to hand to plaintiff, her mother, after his death, so that the latter would have the amount of the note out of his estate as a gift on which to live. He also claimed that the note had never been delivered to plaintiff, that it was without consideration, and that he did not owe anything to plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a sworn answer denying all the averments of the petition. There was evidence to the effect that defendant had received sums of money from plaintiff in excess of the amount of the note, and that plaintiff had lived in defendant’s family for several years without paying board. There was no evidence that the note had not been delivered to plaintiff, nor that she had obtained possession of it in a surreptitious manner. The evidence as to the note being a gift consisted of declarations made by plaintiff, but the testimony was conflicting as to the terms of the gift. There was also some uncertainty as to the declarations being applicable to the particirlar note in question. Held, that the Supreme Court would not, under the circumstances, interfere with the discretion of the lower court in refusing to open the judgment.