Legal Opinion

Miller v. Pollock

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 2, 1882PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county: Of October and November Term, 1881, No. 304. • Assumpsit, by the Kittanning Insurance Company, for use of William Pollock and James Musgrave, administrators of James E. Brown, deceased, against Adam Miller, upon two promissory notes, drawn by Frederic Miller to the order of defendant, and by him indorsed.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county: Of October and November Term, 1881, No. 304. • Assumpsit, by the Kittanning Insurance Company, for use of William Pollock and James Musgrave, administrators of James E. Brown, deceased, against Adam Miller, upon two promissory notes, drawn by Frederic Miller to the order of defendant, and by him indorsed. Subsequently, on the trial of tlio cause, it appearing that Pollock and Musgrave, administrators, were both the legal and equitable owners of the notes, the record was, by leave of court, and under objection of defendant, so amended as to…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Sterbett

The real difficulty in the way of a successful defence in the court below was the fact, established by uncontradicted evidence, that the negotiable notes in suit had passed before maturity for a valuable consideration into the hands of a bona fide holder, since deceased, whose personal representatives were the plaintiffs of record. This presented an obstacle that the defendant below could not overcome by the aid of any evidence in the cause, or any testimony, which lie proposed to introduce. The notes, made by Frederic Miller to the order of and indorsed by defendant below, were delivered to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Munn v. M'DonaldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Philler v. PattersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Penn Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
  3. Houston v. McCaslinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  4. Continental Auto Insurance v. International Motor Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1923

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

Powered by the Exa API