192 A. 654 | Pa. | 1937
Argued May 24, 1937. Appellant petitioned in the court below for a rule to open and let appellant in to an alleged defense to a judgment entered by confession on a mortgage bond. From the order dismissing the petition and refusing the rule this appeal was taken.
We think the court has not abused its discretion. A petition to open a judgment by confession is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (Sferra v. Urling,
For three years after her purchase appellant paid interest but then began insolvency proceedings in a United States District Court. When, on October 3, 1934, the judgment here involved was entered and a fieri facias issued, execution was restrained by the District Court. Execution under an alias writ of July 25, 1935, was similarly obstructed. Finally, on January 7, 1936, the District Court order was vacated and a pluriesfieri facias issued from the court below the same day. The sheriff's sale took place on January 31, 1936. Not until February 4, 1936, did appellant present her petition charging fraud.
Surely if appellant had any confidence in her claim she would have made it earlier; her delay of six years *297
casts doubt on the good faith of her intended defense (cf.Littster v. Littster,
The doctrine of laches has been held applicable to petitions to open judgments by confession as it is to other equitable proceedings: O'Connor v. Flick,
Nothing in Rice v. Olin,
Decree affirmed.