Case Name: Iacoponi, Appellant, v. Plisko
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1965-11-23
Citations: 419 Pa. 398
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 214
Parties: Iacoponi, Appellant, v. Plisko.
Judges: Before Bell, C. J., Mus-manno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and .O’Brien, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 419
Pages: 398–400

Head Matter:
Iacoponi, Appellant, v. Plisko.
Argued October 5, 1965.
Before Bell, C. J., Mus-manno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and .O’Brien, JJ.
Harry Alan Sherman, for appellant.
Stephen D. Marriner, with him McCreight, Marriner & McCreight, for appellees.
November 23, 1965:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice O'Brien,
The instant appeal is from an order of the court below, discharging a rule to show cause why a judgment entered November 10, 1958, should not be opened. . The matter has been before this court previously, and the facts and procedural history are fully detailed in our earlier opinion. Iacoponi v. Plisko, 412 Pa. 576, 195 A. 2d 362 (1963).
Pursuant to our order, the court below reassumed jurisdiction and, after the taking of depositions and argument, resolved the factual issues adversely to appellant and entered the order appealed from. The court found, in essence, that there was no clear evidence that appellant was either an independent contractor or the victim of fraud. Having so found, the court below properly held that, absent clear, direct, precise and convincing evidence of fraud, the judgment should not be opened. Carlson v. Sherwood, 416 Pa. 286, 206 A. 2d 19 (1965).
Appellant vigorously contends that the court below exceeded our mandate by discharging the rule. He argues that our earlier order that "the latest order of the court below will be vacated and the record remanded . . .", limited the court below to a consideration of appellees' motion to strike. Such a narrow view is unsupportable. Our order reads as follows: "Therefore, the latest ord,er of the court below will be vacated and tbe record remanded for such action as will resolve the disputed facts, and for such other appropriate action as those resolved facts require." (Emphasis supplied) It is readily apparent that tbe emphasized portion of our order, that material covered by ellipsis in appellant's presentation, effectively answers their contention. The court below has now resolved the disputed facts and taken the action required by the resolved facts.
Our. review of this record discloses no abuse of discretion or error of law and, consequently, the determination below will not be disturbed. Nilles v. Guiden, 419 Pa. 271, 214 A. 2d 233 (1965), and cases cited therein.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.