
    Del Franco v. Perseo et ux., Appellants.
    
      Equity — Decree pro confesso — Refusal to open — Discretion of court — Abuse—Appeal—Practice.
    The appellate court will not reverse a decree refusing to open a decree entered pro confesso in equity, where no abuse of discretion has been shown.
    
      Argued December . 4, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1925, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1922, No. 7015, refusing to open decree entered pro confesso, in case of Domenico Del Franco v. Bennie Perseo, also known as Berardino Perseo, et ux.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
    Rule to open decree entered pro confesso. Before Shoemaker, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Rule discharged. Defendants appealed.
    
      Error assigned was order, quoting record.
    
      Walter M. Keating, of Knight, Henry & Keating, for appellants.
    
      Michael O. Go glia, for appellee.
    January 5, 1925:
   Per Curiam,

On June 19, 1923, decree pro confesso was entered against defendants for want of appearance after service on them of a bill in equity to enforce specific performance of a contract for sale of real estate. On August 28, 1923, defendants moved to open the decree, and testimony was taken on a rule for that purpose. By depositions, defendants endeavored to sustain defenses which should have been made before decree entered; but, after consideration of the grounds taken, the court below refused to open the decree. It is only necessary to say that we are not convinced of an abuse of discretion.

The order appealed from is affirmed.  