McCarty v. Scanlon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, Jan.' T., 1897, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1893, No. 52, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, Jan.' T., 1897, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1893, No. 52, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Archbald, P. J. ■Reference is made to McCarthy v. Scanlon, 176 Pa. 262. At tbe trial defendant offered to prove by her own testimony that her husband, Mr. Scanlon, the deceased, met the plaintiff on the road between Wilkes-Barre and Ashley some time after the date of this note, when this note was discussed, and when plaintiff stated to Mr. Scanlon and to the witness that Mr. Scanlon was not indebted to Mm, McCarty, in any…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Cheek Justice Sterrett,
When this case was here before (17G Pa. 262) the judgment in plaintiff’s .favor was reversed on the ground that the jury, in a special verdict, found that the note in suit was given “for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors of said Scanlon, and that there was no evidence on the part of the plaintiff to show that said note was given without any consideration or for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors.” Our Brother Mitchell, writing for the Court in that case, said: “ The result is that the plaintiff has a judgment on a ground that he…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. HayesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901
- Estate of Nelson StineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Danner v. HessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Gray v. Gardner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County1929
- Shuman's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911