Hill v. Kroft
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was art action by PI. A. Hill against Kroft & Smith, upon a promissory note, dated 15th May, 1854, payable sixty days after date to P. Clark, Jr., or bearer, for $217.50, endorsed by Clark. The plaintiff read the note and endorsement.
Read the full summary
Error, to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was art action by PI. A. Hill against Kroft & Smith, upon a promissory note, dated 15th May, 1854, payable sixty days after date to P. Clark, Jr., or bearer, for $217.50, endorsed by Clark. The plaintiff read the note and endorsement. The defendants showed a judgment, recovered at the suit of David McCandless against P. Clark, Jr., in June 1854, and attachment execution issued on the 26th June, in which Kroft & Smith were summoned as garnishees, and a judgment rendered by default against them, which, by consent, was on the 23d December,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Knox, J.
On the 15th May, a. d. 1854, the defendants gave to P. Clark, Jr., their promissory note for the payment of $217.50, payable to him or bearer sixty days from date.
On the 26th June, 1854, an execution attachment was issued upon a judgment against Clark the payee, and the makers of the *188note were summoned as garnishees. Before the commencement of the present suit, and before any notice was given that the note had been transferred by Clark to Hill, judgment was obtained in the attachment suit against the garnishees for the amount of the note in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Joseph Melnick Building & Loan Ass'n v. MelnickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Bell v. Philadelphia Binding & Mailing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Holliday v. PotterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- M. Rumely Co. v. AndersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915