Hartzell v. Ebbvale Mining Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 158, June T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., Oct. T., 1910, No. 276, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Henry K. Hartzell v. Ebbvale Mining Company. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before [We And,' J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,337.87. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were various ruling on evidence and instructions.to the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
This suit was brought to recover the amount due on three promissory notes alleged to have been executed and delivered by the defendant corporation to plaintiff. The defense was that the notes were not executed as required by the by-laws of the corporation and that they were not given for corporate indebtedness. The case went to trial on the pleadings and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff.. The assignments of error relate to the admission and rejection of testimony and the instructions of the court at the time of the trial. Appellant is a foreign…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chestnut Street Trust & Saving Fund Co. v. Record Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- First National Bank v. Colonial Hotel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Culver v. Pocono Spring Water Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Dougherty v. HunterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
3Cited by17 opinions
- Farmers State Bank v. HaunWyoming Supreme Court · 1924
- Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Magazine Digest Publishing Co. v. ShadeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Schmitt v. Potter Title & Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Scouton v. Stony Brook Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.