LAW.coLAW.co

Kunkles Appeals

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania1884-10-16No. Nos. 154 and 155
4 Pennyp. 146

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam:

The claim made by the appellant shows that he is in no condition to invoke the aid of a court of equity. He affirms his own turpitude in the very contracts from which he seeks to be relieved. He. entered into them after due considera-tion for the purpose of gain, and with full knowledge of the unlawful character of the transactions. He cannot now be relieved from the judgments which he authorized to be entered against him, by showing his own illegal and immoral acts: Holt v. Green, 23 P. F. Smith, 198; Gill v. Henry, 14 Nor., 388; Winton v. Freeman, 6 Out., 366. The Court was clearly right in refusing to open the judgments and in discharging the rules.

Decrees affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the appellant, in each case.