Stewart v. Huntingdon Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
in error. Several bills of exceptions, both to evidence and the charge of the court, accompanied the return of the record of this case, on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre county; but the Chief Justice having in his opinion, embraced every thing essential to the points decided, it is deemed unnecessary to state their contents, or the facts given in evidence on the trial. cited 3 Mass. Rep. 385. 4 Serg.
Read the full summary
in error. Several bills of exceptions, both to evidence and the charge of the court, accompanied the return of the record of this case, on a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre county; but the Chief Justice having in his opinion, embraced every thing essential to the points decided, it is deemed unnecessary to state their contents, or the facts given in evidence on the trial. cited 3 Mass. Rep. 385. 4 Serg. Sr Rawle, IT. 7 Crunch, 300. 12 Johns. 231. 4 Serg. fy Rawle, 175. '2 Johns. Cas. 96. 5 Binn. 239. 2 Wash. 230, 231. Chitty on Bills, 374. 12 Mod. 490. 15 Johns- 55.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
This is an action of debt on a single bill, for 5000 dollars, given by the defendants below, (who are plaintiffs in error,) to the Huntingdon Bank, dated the 6th May, 1818, and payable 12.0 days after date. Part of the money was paid before *268the commencement of the suit. The plaintiff’s demand was 3650 dollars, with interest from the 27th April, 1819. Thirteen exceptions were taken by the counsel for the defendants, on the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, bui the whole may be reduced to a few principles. The defendants'pleaded payment,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bank of Northern Liberties v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843