Case Name: BUSKIRK'S APPEAL
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1882-04-24
Citations: 4 Walk. 409
Docket Number: No. 92
Parties: BUSKIRK’S APPEAL.
Judges: Woodward, J.
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
BUSKIRK’S APPEAL.
A mere conflict of testimony between parties, plaintiff and defendant, will not justify opening a judgment.
No. 92, July Term, 1881.
Appeal from the Common Pleas of Luzerne County.
G. L. Buskirk and Henry Shook were administrators of James Buskirk. G. L. Buskirk purchased various articles at the administrators’ sale and gave two notes amounting to '$623.76 to the administrators in payment. Afterwards the administrators filed an account, and paid over, in 1872, to John Myers, guardian of the two minor children of James Buskirk, certain notes amounting to about $1,000, as the estate of his wards. Myers advanced money to his wards and took the notes himself. One note, given by Samuel Streepy to James Buskirk, for $300, was collected by John Myers. G. L. BusLirk swore that the Streepy note was given by mistake. Myers swore that it was part of the $1,000 which accounted for. G. L. Buskirk’s notes were renewed- from time to time, and on January 22, 1877, a judgment for $1,072.76 was entered upon a judgment note given by G. L. Buskirk to John Myers, who assigned it to D. E. Bell. Execution was issued in 1881, and then G. L. Buskirk took a rule to open the judgment, alleging that he was entitled to credit on account of the Streepy note. The Court discharged the rule to open the judgment on June 18, 1881, in the following opinion by
Woodward, J.
The rule in this case must be discharged; a mere conflict of testimony between the parties, plaintiff and defendant, themselves, will not as a general rule, justify us in opening a judgment. In this instance the defendant’s testimony is not sufficiently distinct to warrant any relaxation of the rule. See Earley’s Appeal, 90 Penna., 322.
Buskirk then appealed.
C. H. Wells and Thos. F. Wells, Esqs., for appellant.
D. W. Connelly, Esq., for appellee,
cited Earley’s Appeal, 90 Penna., 322, and Wernet’s Appeal, 91 Pa., 319.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on April 24, 1882, in the following opinion:
Per Curiam.
We are of opinion that upon all the evidence, the refusal of the learned Judge of the Court below was the exercise of a sound discretion.
Order affirmed, appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant, and record remitted.