Gaw v. Bennett
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 104, July T., 1892, by plaintiffs, H. L. Gaw & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1888, No. 240, on verdict for defendant, Charles H. Bennett, administrator of Henry K. Bennett, deceased. Assumpsit on promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 104, July T., 1892, by plaintiffs, H. L. Gaw & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1888, No. 240, on verdict for defendant, Charles H. Bennett, administrator of Henry K. Bennett, deceased. Assumpsit on promissory note. At the trial, before Finletter, P. J., defendant claimed that the note was given in settlement of gambling operations, and introduced evidence which tended to show that Henry K. Bennett, the decedent, had invested in his business of selling yarn on commission about $7,700, and had no other property, and that the net profits of his business were…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sterrett,
This suit is on a note made by defendant’s intestate to the order of the plaintiffs for $5,373.89, at six months from August 29,1881. It appears to have been given for balance of ac*254counts, between the maker and the payees, covering a period of nearly three and a half years.
The note, given in evidence by plaintiffs, made a prima facie case, entitling them to a verdict, unless the testimony introduced by defendant was sufficient to justify the court in submitting to the jury, as was done, questions of fact suggested in his points, for charge, recited in the second…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brua's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by5 opinions
- Albertson v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Martin v. Citizens BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Fearon v. LittleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Dauler v. HartleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Prince & Whitely v. McCutcheon, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1930