Case Name: Tressler, Appellant, v. Emerick
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-06-23
Citations: 278 Pa. 128
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 142
Parties: Tressler, Appellant, v. Emerick.
Judges: Before Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 278
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Tressler, Appellant, v. Emerick.
Appeals — !Judgment—Buie to open judgment — Discretion.
1. An order making absolute a rule to open a judgment entered upon a note is a matter for the discretion of tbe lower court; and such order will not be reversed if no abuse of discretion appears.
2. In affirming such an order, the appellate court will abstain from discussing either the facts or the law.
Argued May 14, 1923.
Appeal, No. 142, Jan. T., 1923, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1919, No. 202, making absolute rule to open judgment, in case of Lloyd J. Tressler v. M. L. Emerick.
Before Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Buie to open judgment. Before Landis, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Buie absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting record.
J. Fred Schaffer, with him John A. Ooyle, for appellant.
John F. Malone, for appellee, was not heard.
June 23, 1923:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal by plaintiff is from an order opening a judgment entered upon a note, as to the amount of a certain receipt. Passing upon a rule to open judgment is a matter for the discretion of the lower court (Kelber v. Plow Co., 146 Pa. 485; Blauvelt v. Kemon, 196 Pa. 128; Massey v. Massey et al., 267 Pa. 239, 242; Spiess v. Mooney, 67 Pa. Superior Ct. 8; Toffalo v. Marino, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 281; and see Budd v. Coyer et ux., 273 Pa. 309), and the controlling question here is, Did such action constitute an abuse of discretion? Under tbe case as now presented, this must be answered in tbe negative ; but since a different aspect may appear on tbe trial, we will follow our usual practice and abstain from discussing either tbe facts or tbe law in tbis opinion.
Tbe order opening tbe judgment is affirmed with a procedendo.