Legal Opinion

Goldsmith v. Stocker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 19, 1915No. Appeal, No. 254PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal, No. 254, Jan. T., 1914, by Katharine B. Stocker, defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Sept. Term, 1910, No. 6, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Samuel Goldsmith and' Solomon Goldsmith, executors of Isaac .Goldsmith, v. J. Henry Stocker and Katharine B. Stocker. Assumpsit on a promissory note.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 254, Jan. T., 1914, by Katharine B. Stocker, defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Sept. Term, 1910, No. 6, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Samuel Goldsmith and' Solomon Goldsmith, executors of Isaac .Goldsmith, v. J. Henry Stocker and Katharine B. Stocker. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Endlich, P. J. From the record it appeared that some time prior to the date of the note in suit, J. Henry Stocker and J. Jacob Longenderfer, for the purpose of raising $5,000, for an enterprise in which they were about to engage as partners, made two notes each for $2,500, which…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Elkin,

The main contention of appellant is that judgment non obstante veredicto should have been entered upon the whole record. After mature deliberation we have concluded that this position is not tenable. As general propositions of law applicable to cases arising under our statute of frauds and perjuries there is great force in what learned counsel for appellant have stated in their printed argument. But in considering the application of the law, the-facts have a most important bearing and frequently must be given controlling effect. In *184the ease at bar the note in suit…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Paul v. StackhouseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. LippincottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Farren v. McNultySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Kleman v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1916
  4. Gray v. Devers Mercantile Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  5. Blake-Cadillac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Cackovic, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API