
    Trexler, Appellant, v. Reynolds.
    
      Judgment — Opening judgment — Sale—Issue of fact.
    
    An order making absolute a rule to open a judgment entered on a bond given to secure a part of the purchase money for land and certain personal property situated thereon, will be affirmed where it appears that there was testimony on behalf of the defendant that a part of such personal property had not been delivered to him, but had been removed by the plaintiffs, and converted to their own use. The dispute in such a case is as to what property was included in the sale, and the issue of fact thus raised is one on which a jury should pass.
    Argued April 22, 1907.
    Appeal, No. 331, Jan. T., 1906, by-plaintiff, from order of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 172, making absolute rule to open judgment in case of J. E. Trexler and J. L. Trexler v. H. P. Reynolds.
    Before Pell, Brown, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Rule to open judgment.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
    
      Error assigned was the order of the court.
    
      H. H. Waite, for appellant.
    
      Thomas F. Bailey, with him Samuel I. Spyker and Chamles C. Brewster, for appellee.
    May 13, 1907:
   Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order making absolute a rule to open a judgment, entered by confession on a bond given to secure a part of the purchase money for land and certain personal property situated thereon. There was testimony on behalf of the defendant that a part of the personal property which he had bought had not been delivered to him, but had been removed by the plaintiffs and converted to their use. The dispute between the parties was as to what property was included in the sale, and the issue of fact thus raised was one on which a jury should pass.

The order of the court is affirmed.  