Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

162 Pa. 584

Cake v. Cake

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 11, 1894

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1894-07-11

Appeal, No. 66, July T., 1894, by defendant, Joseph W. Cake, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., May T., 1891, No. 281, discharging rule to open judgment. Rule to open judgment. The following opinion was filed by Savidge, P. J. .- “ Judgment was entered by virtue of a confession in a judgment note dated April 13, 1881. As legatee of his wife, Minnie E., J. A. Cake is owner of the judgment and it has been marked to his use.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1894-07-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1984

2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

201894190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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,

¶1This appeal is from the decree discharging the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and the defendant let in to a defence. Our examination of the record has led us to the conclusion that there is nothing in either of the specifications of error that would justify a reversal. The learned president of the common pleas rightly held that Minnie E. Cake, the payee in the note and original plaintiff in the judgment, being dead, the defendant Joseph W. Cake is not a competent witness, and without his testimony there is not sufficient evidence to justify the court in making the rule to show cause etc. absolute. There is nothing in the case that requires discussion.

¶2Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.

/162/pa/584 · .json · Public domain