Case Name: Raeder v. Monks, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1910-05-16
Citations: 228 Pa. 269
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 257 and 258
Parties: Raeder v. Monks, Appellant.
Judges: Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Raeder v. Monks, Appellant.
Judgment — Opening judgment — Findings of fact.
Where on a rule to open a judgment, the court finds from competent testimony that the ground alleged by the defendants for opening the judgment is not sustained, the Supreme Court will not reverse the order discharging the rule, in the absence of clear error.
Argued April 11, 1910.
Appeals, Nos. 257 and 258, Jan. T., 1909, by defendants, from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Dec. T., 1908, No. 644, discharging rules to open judgment in case of W. L. Reader v. James S. Monks et al.
Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Affirmed.
Rule to open judgment. Before Ferris, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
May 16, 1910:
Error assigned was order discharging rule to open the judgment.
James L. Lenahan, with him Edward A. Lynch, for appellants.
M. J. Mulhall, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
These appeals are from an order discharging a rule to open a judgment for rent entered upon a written lease. Four persons were named in the body of the lease as lessees but only three of them signed it. All four, however, entered into possession of the premises, paid rent, sublet the property and jointly took all the benefits of the lease. The ground of the application by the defendants to open the judgment was that they had signed the lease upon the assurance by the lessor that the fourth person named as lessee would also sign it. The court found that the contention of the defendants was not sustained by the testimony. Such a finding as this will not be set aside unless it is shown that it is clearly erroneous. This has. not been done.
The order of the court is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.