Case Name: Hutton, Appellant, v. Altland
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-05-26
Citations: 250 Pa. 113
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 83
Parties: Hutton, Appellant, v. Altland.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Elkin, Mosohzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
Hutton, Appellant, v. Altland.
Judgments — Confessed judgments — Fraud — Opening of judgments — Judicial discretion — Proper exercise.
The lower court properly opened a judgment entered upon a note alleged to have been given by a mother to her daughter, where it was alleged that the note was obtained from defendant by fraud, or that it was a forgery, where there was no proof that defendant ever knew of the existence of the note until judgment was entered thereon, where the witnesses who attested the defendant’s signature were not permitted to see the contents of the paper which they were witnessing, and where, subsequent to the date of the note, the plaintiff admitted in the presence of a reputable witness that the defendant owed her nothing.
Argued May 19, 1915.
Appeal, No. 83, Jan. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. York Co., Oct. T., 1911, No. 214, opening judgment, in case of Catharine E. Hutton v. Kerwin W. Altland, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Catharine Naylor.
Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Elkin, Mosohzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Petition for rule to open a judgment entered upon a judgment note. Before Ross, J.
From the record it appeared that the judgment defendant alleged that the note, upon which the judgment had been entered, was obtained from her by fraud or else that the note was a forgery; that she had never seen the note or any note similar to that upon which judgment had been entered previous to the entry of the judgment; that the judgment plaintiff was the daughter of the judgment defendant; that although the note was witnessed by two persons, the paper was folded over when they witnessed it and they did not know what paper they were witnessing; that the judgment plaintiff subsequent to the date of the note .had admitted in the presence of a reputable witness that the judgment defendant owed her nothing. Outside of the testimony of the plaintiff there wás nothing on the record to indicate to the court that, the defendant ever had any notice that the judgment note existed until judgment was confessed thereon.
The lower court opened the judgment. The judgment plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
Allen C. Wiest, with him William A. Allen and Josiah W. Gitt, for appellant.
Jas. G. Glessner, for appellee.
May 26, 1915.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from an order opening a judgment entered upon a note alleged to have been given by a mother to her daughter. In view of the testimony offered in support of the application to open the judgment — a recital of which would serve no good purpose — the court below would have clearly erred if it had not granted the relief prayed for; and this is all that need be said in answer to the complaint of the appellant that error was committed by the order or decree from which she has appealed.
Appeal dismissed at appellant's costs.