Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

130 Pa. 369

Pflaum v. McClintock

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 11, 1889

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1889-11-11

1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. No. 101 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 112 June Term 1889, C. P. No. 1. On April 2, 1889, a judgment was entered upon, a copy of a bond with warrant of attorney, by Magnus Pflaum, administrator of Emma King, deceased, against James H. McClintock and M. McClintock, for $166.68.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-11-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 1991

7 state decisions

20188918901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1There is nothing upon this record to show that the court below did not properly exercise its discretion in refusing to open the judgment. There was nothing before it but the unsupported allegations in the petition filed by the defendants. Nor are the circumstances referred to in the petition, even were they established to the satisfaction of the court below, sufficient, to justify it in disturbing the judgment. The bond in question' was given for a good consideration, viz., the settlement of a fornication and bastardy case ; and the fact that it was executed by James H. McClintock while confined in jail, in the absence of any constraint or duress practiced upon him in procuring the bond, was unimportant. The “ duress ” referred to in the petition was the “ duress ” of the law, not of the obligee named in said bond. The case is wholly devoid of merit, and is

¶2Affirmed.

/130/pa/369 · .json · Public domain