Case Name: Wade, Appellant, v. Thornton
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-05-18
Citations: 283 Pa. 544
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 284
Parties: Wade, Appellant, v. Thornton.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 283
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Wade, Appellant, v. Thornton.
Appeals — Review—Judgmeni—Opening judgment — Discretion of court — Abuse.
The appellate court will not reverse an order making absolute a rule to open a judgment, where it is convinced on examination of the record that the court below did not abuse its discretion in so doing.
Argued April 24,1925.
Appeal, No. 284, Jan. T., 1925, by plaintiff, from order of O. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1924, No. 9862, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of John A. Wade v. Thomas Thornton.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Rule to open judgment. Before Ferguson, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Rule absolute. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, order, .quoting record.
C. W. Van Artsdalen, for appellant.
William T. Connor, with him John R. K. Scott, for appellee.
May 18, 1925:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The court below made absolute a rule to open a judgment for $20,616.05, entered August 2, 1924, on three judgment notes dated April 4, 1905, aggregating a face value of $11,500; that is to say, judgment was entered, for principal and interest, more than nineteen years after the date of the notes.
We shall not at this time indicate any view as to the merits of the case or as to the points of law involved; it is sufficient to say that an examination of the record has not convinced us the court below abused its discretion in entering the order assigned for error.
The order is affirmed.