Klase v. Bright
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: No. 108, to January Term 1871. The action in this case as appeared on the record was: “ William H. Bright for the use of D. Martin Dye v. Abraham Klase.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: No. 108, to January Term 1871. The action in this case as appeared on the record was: “ William H. Bright for the use of D. Martin Dye v. Abraham Klase. Summons in assumpsit on promissory note, issued January 29th 1869.” The first count of the declaration was that Bright for the use of Dye complained of Klase, that the defendant on the 18th of April 1868, made his promissory note and delivered it to the plaintiff and thereby promised to pay him $1000 in 9 months. Another count was that Klase made his note on the 18th of April 1868, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Williams, J.
The settlement, shown to have been made by the defendant with Dye, for whose use this action was brought, gives rise to the principal question in the case. The plaintiff alleges that it was collusively made after notice to the defendant that the note in suit belonged to him, and that Dye had no interest or property in it. The defendant denies that he had any such notice when he settled with Dye, and for this reason insists that the settlement is valid and binding on the plaintiff. The positive testimony given on the part of the plaintiff,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Goldberg v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Beaumont v. SharplessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Farrell v. YoungSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Riley v. EigoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896