McCarthy v. Scanlon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 13, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T.,, 1893, No. 52, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Gunster, A. L. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court below and by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 13, Jan. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T.,, 1893, No. 52, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Gunster, A. L. J. The facts appear by the charge of the court below and by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial plaintiff offered in evidence exhibit “ B,” being the check testified to by plaintiff (referred to in the charge),, dated February 1, 1886, on the Wyoming National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, payable to the order of Martin Scanlon, $5,000, signed M. A. McCarthy, indorsed Martin Scanlon, with the indorsement,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
This case was very loosely tried by both sides, the witnesses apparently being allowed to tell whatever they thought bore on the dispute without reference to its relevancy or their own legal competency. Although therefore the check and judgment notes, exhibits B, C and D, had no apparent connection with the note in suit, yet the assignments of error to their admission cannot be sustained because the plaintiff had been allowed to testify all about them and had been cross-examined on them without regard to their relevancy or to the fact that Scanlon by whom they…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ragnar Benson, Inc. v. Bethel Mart AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Sallade v. Schuylkill CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Estate of Elke DayenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Gray v. Gardner, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Centre County1929