Milliken v. Barr
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Allegheny. Sept. 28. Assumpsit by John Barr on two notes drawn by Mil-liken, one dated November, 1843, for $95 50, payable April 1, 1844, the other for $9 50, of the same date, at one month.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Allegheny. Sept. 28. Assumpsit by John Barr on two notes drawn by Mil-liken, one dated November, 1843, for $95 50, payable April 1, 1844, the other for $9 50, of the same date, at one month. The defendant gave evidence disproving the handwriting, and showed an account between himself and Barr, resulting in a balance of $92 94, for which a due-bill was given, May 19, 1842. This was marked N, and had endorsements of payments, amounting in all to upwards of $80. On the 13th November, 1843, he gave a due-bill “ on settlement, for $9 18, on which $2 18 was…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
This was an action of assumpsit on two promissory notes. The plaintiff in error, who was defendant in the District Court, alleged they were forged and counterfeit. On this ground much evidence was given on both sides.
The plaintiff below, as rebutting the defendant’s evidence, offered to prove, by witnesses, that they had seen a certain note of the defendant, and in his handwriting, in possession of the plaintiff, with endorsements and credits on the back, and the amount and character of the credits so endorsed, and this for the purpose of showing *24that the note sued by the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hartzell v. Brown's heirsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
3Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KeeneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Security Trust Co. v. RobbCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1906
- Strawbridge v. Clamond Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900