Legal Opinion

Harr, SEC. of Banking v. Schwinn

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1937No. Appeal, 167PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

An examination of the record convinces us the court below correctly determined that judgment should be entered for Emily G. Schwinn on both notes, because the testimony establishes that she signed the notes as an accommodation maker. The case is not governed by Archibald v. Hood, 322 Pa. 434, 186 A. 791, because Mrs. Schwinn was only a nominal holder of the title and had no real interest in the property. As to her, the case should be at an end, including her counterclaim.

We are also of opinion that the court in the exercise of a proper discretion granted a new trial as to George…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Archbald v. Hood Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Olney Bank and Trust Co. CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API