Case Name: E. K. Range, Executor of Alvira Shearer, Deceased, v. Thomas M. Culbertson, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1895-05-20
Citations: 168 Pa. 324
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 75
Parties: E. K. Range, Executor of Alvira Shearer, Deceased, v. Thomas M. Culbertson, Appellant.
Judges: Before Williams, Mc-Collum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 168
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
E. K. Range, Executor of Alvira Shearer, Deceased, v. Thomas M. Culbertson, Appellant.
Judgment— Opening judgment.
The refusal of the court below to open a judgment when the testimony is conflicting will not be disturbed by the supreme court.
Argued April 30, 1895.
Appeal, No. 75, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant, from order of C. P. Erie Co., MayT., 1898, No. 588, discharging a rule to open judgment.
Before Williams, Mc-Collum, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.
Affirmed.
Rule to open judgment.
From the record it appeared that T. M. Culbertson owed Alvira Shearer $621, on a judgment note dated May 1, 1892. Alvira died on April 3,1893. On July 26,1893, the judgment note was entered up by the executor. On a rule to open the judgment, defendant offered in evidence a paper dated Oct. 27, 1892, as follows:
“ $500.00 Le Boeuee, Oct. 27, 1892.
“ I, Alvira Shearer, promise to give $500.00 to Nancy Culbertson out of note I hold against T. M. Culbertson.
(Signed) “Alvira Sheareb, X-
“ Witness:
“ Grant Culbertson.”
The execution and delivery of this paper were denied by plaintiff.
Nancy Culbertson was the wife of T. M. Culbertson, and daughter of Alvira Shearer. There was no evidence that at the time the above paper was signed Alvira Shearer owed anything to her daughter Nancy Culbertson.
The court discharged the rule to open judgment. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was above order.
S. M. Brainerd, Geo. H. Higgins with him, for appellant.
E. A. Walling, T. A. Lamb with him, for appellee.
May 20, 1895:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to open a judgment, and requires an examination of the evidence rather than of any legal question. We have examined the evidence as it appears upon the paper-books. The learned trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing them. His conscience was not moved by the testimony, and we are not inclined to disturb his conclusion.
The appeal from his refusal to open the judgment is dismissed.