Legal Opinion

Dull v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 17, 1925No. Appeal, 42PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, an endorsee, sued the maker of a promissory note; the statement of claim alleged that plaintiff became a holder for value before maturity. The affidavit of defense admitted the execution of the note and that it had not been met, but averred a contemporaneous parol agreement with the payee that the note was to be paid out of a fund thereafter to be created by the re-sale of certain corporate stock, for the purchase of which the note was originally given by defendant to the payee, who was to retain it until thus paid; defendant further alleged that plaintiff had knowledge…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Rothrock Stores v. PanzeraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Penneys v. SegalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  3. International Fin. Co. v. Magilansky Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. First National Bank of Portland v. Hartman Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. First National Bank of Philadelphia v. Anderson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1956

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API