TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Laws v. Maxwell

Laws to use v. Maxwell

Laws v. Maxwell, 116 A. 520 (Pa. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 6, 1922
Docket
Nos. , No. 132
Judges
Frazer, Kephaet, Ker, Moschzis, Sadler, Schaefer, Simpson, Walling
Citations
116 A. 520273 Pa. 81922 Pa. LEXIS 502
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Judgment — Opening judgment — Discharge of rule. Where a judgment entered on a note given by defendant to plaintiff is sought to be opened on the ground that defendant was not indebted to plaintiff, the rule to open will be discharged, where it appears that the judgment had been marked to the use of a corporation by which defendant had been employed, that its amount represented a sum embezzled by defendant, and that the note had been taken in the name of the legal plaintiff at defendant’s request, so chat it might not cause suspicion, and impair his chance of obtaining other employment.
Summary
Appeal, No. 132, Jan. T., 1920, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1918, No. 4515, discharging rule to open judgment, in ease of Francis S. Laws to use of Edward K. Tryon Co. v. William H. Maxwell, Eule to open judgment. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Eule discharged. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was, inter alia, above order.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal to open a judgment entered on a note under seal signed by defendant. The evidence shows that defendant worked for use-plaintiff; he proved a defaulter, and the obligation in suit was given to cover the balance due his employer. The note was taken in the name of the legal plaintiff, Francis S. Laws, at the special solicitation and request of defendant, who feared that, if judgment for such a large amount were entered against him by his employer, just as he, defendant, was leaving a position which he had occupied for some years, it might cause suspicion and impair his chances of obtaining other employment. This simple statement of facts disposes of the necessity for discussing the points of law so earnestly urged upon us by ap *10 pellant’s counsel, and it is necessary to say only that, after reading the testimony, we are not convinced of error.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list