Ihmsen v. Negley, Mohan & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
■ Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. The action was assumpsit, in which a verdict was found for the plaintiff for $694.30, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a reserved point, which, together with the facts upon which it arose, are stated as follows by his Honour Judge Hampton :— “ The point reserved by the Court in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover under the evidence given by him; the defendants haying withdrawn their evidence by…
Read the full summary
■ Error to the District Court of Allegheny county. The action was assumpsit, in which a verdict was found for the plaintiff for $694.30, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a reserved point, which, together with the facts upon which it arose, are stated as follows by his Honour Judge Hampton :— “ The point reserved by the Court in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover under the evidence given by him; the defendants haying withdrawn their evidence by leave of the Court. “ The action is assumpsit against the defendants' as endorsers of a note hearing date the 16th day…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Lowrie, J. —
The bill of exchange in Cooper v. McClurkan, 22 State Rep. 80, was drawn and endorsed with the name of McClurkan & Co. by Fleming; and it appeared to be "for his private use, because it was written and endorsed by him in Philadelphia, and he accepted and sold the bill there, where he was himself living and doing business on his own account, while the place of business of McClurkan & Co. was in Pittsburgh. Some of these matters were perhaps improvidently left out of that part of the opinion in which the question is stated.
The note in Tanner…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rhodes v. TerheydenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Brown v. PettitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896