Case ID: pa_285/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Slattery Bros., Inc., Appellant, v. Powers et al.
    
      Judgment — Opening judgment — Married women — Security for husband — Act of June 8, 1898, P. L. SJ¡Jj — Discretion of court.
    
    The appellate court will not reverse an order opening a judgment against a married woman, where it appears that there was no abuse of discretion by the lower court in finding that there was sufficient evidence to raise an issue as to whether the judgment was not in fact entered against the wife as surety for her husband, and, if so, void under the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344.
    Argued January 12, 1926.
    Appeal, No. 106, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. Delaware Go., June T., 1924, No. 1811, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of Slattery Bros., Inc., v. Murtha E. Leary et al.
    Before Moschzisker, O. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule to open judgment. Before Reoomall, J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      A. B. Geary, of Geary & Ranhin, for appellant.
    
      John E. McDonough, with him George Green, Jr., for appellee.
    January 18, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

The court below opened a judgment against a married woman, entered on a judgment note signed by her, her husband, and two other persons; plaintiff has appealed.

On the proofs submitted for and against the relief sought, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to raise an issue as to whether, so far as appellee was concerned, the note in question was “in reality......a contract by her as surety for her husband,” saying that, if it was such a contract, “then, without regard to its form, it would be void under the Aet of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344.”

After reading the evidence, written and oral, we find no abuse of discretion.

The order appealed from is affirmed.