History
  • No items yet
midpage
Laws v. Maxwell
273 Pa. 8
Pa.
1922
Check Treatment
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*10pellant’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.

Case Details

Case Name: Laws v. Maxwell
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Feb 6, 1922
Citation: 273 Pa. 8
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 132
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.