Opinion
March 19, 1964.
April 14, 1964.
Caplan v. Seidman, 203 Pa. Super. 170, Held controlling.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 86, Oct. T., 1964, from order of County Court of Philadelphia, Sept. T., 1963, No. 5849-D, in case of Joseph Caplan v. Dale A. Knob et al. Order affirmed as to judgment against Seidman and reversed as to judgment against Knob.
Proceeding upon petition of defendants and rule to show cause why judgment entered by confession on a note should not be stricken off.
Order entered making rule absolute, opinion by BURCH, J. Plaintiff appealed.
Lawrence Goldberg, for appellant.
Jerome E. Furman, for appellees.
Argued March 19, 1964.
This appeal is controlled by our decision in Caplan v. Seidman, 203 Pa. Super. 170, 199 A.2d 483. In the instant case, Dale A. Knob was the maker of the note and Simon Seidman, together with Benjamin Caplan, executed the agreement to indemnify the payee against loss. The lower court made absolute a rule to strike off the judgment in its entirety.
The order is affirmed as to the judgment against Simon Seidman and reversed as to the judgment against Dale A. Knob. The court below is directed to reinstate the latter judgment on the record.