Hanratty v. Dougherty
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 106, Oct. Term, 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 3268, on verdict for plaintiff in issue framed with Michael Hanratty as plaintiff and Cornelius Dougherty as defendant. Interpleader awarded on petition and answer to determine ownership of fund paid into court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 106, Oct. Term, 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 3268, on verdict for plaintiff in issue framed with Michael Hanratty as plaintiff and Cornelius Dougherty as defendant. Interpleader awarded on petition and answer to determine ownership of fund paid into court. Before Monaghan, J. From the record it appeared that Cornelius Dougherty, defendant in the issue framed, brought suit in C. P. Philadelphia County, June Term, 1913, No. 410, under the caption “Cornelius Dougherty to the use of Michael Hanratty v. John Gardiner, Edward C.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
We will consider the several questions involved as they appear in appellant’s argument.
1. The court refused two points submitted by the defendant which were to the • effect that under the law where suit is brought by the assignee of a negotiable instrument assigned before maturity, the suit may and ought to be brought in the name of the assignee himself and not in the name of the original payee to the use, etc. The court could not affirm these points. It would not have been a correct statement of the law. Suit in the payee’s name to the use of the assignee is proper. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hufnagle v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by4 opinions
- Burns Mortgage Co. v. FriedSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Struppler v. RexfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- McKinley v. WainsteinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Churchfield v. Paul Snyder, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1952