Case Name: Voegler v. Klingensmith Company et al., Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1926-04-30
Citations: 88 Pa. Super. 34
Docket Number: Appeal No. 110
Parties: Voegler v. Klingensmith Company et al., Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, and Cunningham, J.J.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
Voegler v. Klingensmith Company et al., Appellant.
Argued April 21, 1926.
Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, and Cunningham, J.J.
L. S. Roberts, and with him S. W. Bierer, for appellant.
H. H. Dinsmore, for appellee.
April 30, 1926:

Opinion:
Per. Curiam,
The judgment in this case was entered by confession, under a warrant of attorney contained in a note. The appellant moved to open the judgment, alleging that his signature had been procured by misrepresentation. The plaintiff filed an answer specifically denying all the material allegations of fact contained in the petition of the appellant. Depositions were taken by the parties in support of their respective contentions. The testimony on the facts material to the rights of the parties, practically amounted to no more than oath against oath. This being the case we would not be warranted in holding, that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to open the judgment.
The order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.