Safe Deposit Bank v. County of Schuylkill
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 46, Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1898, No. 475, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the trial court on the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 46, Jan. T., 1899, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1898, No. 475, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the trial court on the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto. Defendant’s points and the answers thereto were as follows: 1. If the jury find that the $5,000 in the note of July 3,1895, and the $5,000 in the note of June 6, 1896, were not paid by the Safe Deposit Bank to the treasurer of the county of Schuylkill or his authorized agent, they should in their verdict give the county credit for…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was no error in refusing defendant’s points for charge recited in the first, second and third specifications respectively, nor in refusing to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto on the question of law reserved and recited in the remaining specification.
In the opinion of the learned trial judge, discharging the rule for judgment non obstante veredicto, the controlling facts of the case are fully stated and need not' be repeated here; and the questions of law involved are so fully considered and so accurately decided by him that nothing can be profitably…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DeppenDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1944
- Quinter v. QuinterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Lehman v. LehmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Pitcairn v. ScullySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Dunn v. Berks CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.