Case Name: Wesoky v. Jackson, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-07-10
Citations: 70 Pa. Super. 281
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 80
Parties: Wesoky v. Jackson, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
Wesoky v. Jackson, Appellant.
July 10, 1918:
Judgment — Opening judgment — Evidence — Discretion of the court.
An order discharging a rule to open a judgment will not be reversed on appeal where it appears that the order was made on conflicting evidence in the exercise of a sound discretion by the court below, and without manifest error.
Argued May 6, 1918.
Appeal, No. 80, April T., 1918, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., April T., 1917, No. 245, discharging rule to open judgment in case of A. & J. Wesoky v. Henry Jackson.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.
Affirmed.
Buie to open judgment.
Error assigned was order discharging rule to open judgment.
H. D. Montgomery, with him Prichard & Trent, for appellant.
J. C. Thompson, for appellee, filed no printed brief.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The defendant applied to the court below for a rule to open a judgment entered against him by confession, and on the hearing before the court considerable testimony was taken, in which the defendant admitted the genuineness of his signature to the lease on which the judgment is based. The court held, after a consideration of the testimony, that he was not entitled to have the judgment opened and make a defense on the grounds set out in his petition. Questions of fact passed upon by the court below will be reviewed only in case of mani fest error, and we review the evidence only for the purpose of determining the law of the case, and not its weight. A conclusion reached by the court on conflicting evidence of witnesses whose credibility is wholly for its consideration is conclusive, and will not be reviewed on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.