Jensen v. McCorkell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 211, Jan. T., 1893, oy defendant, John G. R. McCorkell, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June .T., 1891, No. 928, on verdict for plaintiff, Anna M. Jensen. Assumpsit against indorsee on promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Steeeett,
This suit is on a note at ninety days from March 28,1890, made by Rodger Convery to the order of P. C. Convery, indorsed by him and by the defendant, etc.
It is conceded the note was duly presented to the maker at maturity and protested for nonpayment. The only question was whether defendant was legally notified of the dishonor of the note. Alonzo R. Rutherford, the notary by whom it was protested, testified, in substance, that on the day named he enclosed notice of protest in an envelope addressed to defendant, “ Philadelphia Driving Park, Philadelphia,”…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Huntley v. WhittierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Whitmore v. Dwelling House Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Briggs v. HerveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Heath v. SlocumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Susquehanna Mutual Fire Insurance v. Tunkhannock Toy Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cameron EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Beeman v. Supreme LodgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- McSparran v. Southern Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Neubert v. Armstrong Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.