Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Pa. 41

Klopfer v. Ekis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1893

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1893-01-03

Appeals, Nos. 178 and 274, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, C. P. Klopfer, from orders of G. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1891, No. 261, aud April T., 1878, No. 588, making absolute a rule to open judgment. Rules to open judgments.

Relies on Bank v. Fulmor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-01-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1933

3 state decisions

1018931900191019201930decided

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 →

Pkk Curiam,

¶1In Jenkintown National Bank’s Appeal, 124 Pa. 345, it was said by this court: “ It is difficult to lay down the precise measure of proof which should move a chancellor to open a judgment. That he may not act unless there is more than oath against oath is a familiar rule in chancery practice. When there is more than this, and it comes to the question of the weight of the evidence, it is for him to decide to which side the *43scales incline. If lie is in doubt upon this question, or as to the credibility of the witnesses, a prudent course would suggest the aid of a jury. This rule provides a reasonable margin for the exercise of the discretion of the court below, which this court will hesitate to interfere with.”

¶2This rule was adopted after a careful consideration as a guide to the common pleas judges in applications of this kind. We think the action of the learned judge below comes within the reasonable margin there referred to. His order opening the judgment is

¶3Affirmed.

/155/pa/41 · .json · Public domain