Haimowich v. McLaughlin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 25, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 3,447, for plaintiff n. o. v. in case of Jacob Haimowieh v. William H. McLaughlin. Assumpsit on a check.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 25, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 3,447, for plaintiff n. o. v. in case of Jacob Haimowieh v. William H. McLaughlin. Assumpsit on a check. Before Kinsey, J. At the trial the defendant offered proof that the check had been given to A. Gorneau in payment for a fur coat; that the coat delivered was not the coat bought, that Gorneau acknowledged the error, took back the coat delivered, but never returned any other coat for it, and that he had indorsed the check over to Jacob Hahnowich who had full knowledge of the fraud.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
At the conclusion of the trial in this case the record exhibited exactly the situation that was presented in Second Nat. Bank v. Hoffman, 229 Pa. 429. Had the learned trial judge then given a binding direction to find for the plaintiff, a judgment on the verdict must have necessarily been reversed here in obedience to the authority of the case we have cited. There the supreme court but gave effect to the plain mandates of the act of 1901 regulating the trial of such cases. We followed that ruling in the recent case of Shoe Mach. Co. v. Winston, ante, p. 526. Although the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- National Bank v. PalmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914