163 Pa. 465 | Pa. | 1894
Opinion by
While the prayer of the petitioner was that the judgment in question be stricken from» the record, the proceeding appears to have been treated throughout as a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and defendant let-into a defence, etc.
At best, plaintiff’s explanations of this and other transactions with defendant appear to be unsatisfactory. If he actually paid the $500 note, it is due to him as well as .the defendant that he should have an opportunity of-proving the fact. If he is unable to do so, defendant should at least have credit for the ámount.
Without referring to other circumstances which may assume importance on the trial, we think the decree discharging the rule should be reversed.
Decree reversed and ordered that the judgment be opened and defendant be permitted to defend, etc.