Mitchell v. Richmond
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 43, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 646, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note given by married woman for first premium on life insurance policy.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 43, Oct. T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1893, No. 646, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note given by married woman for first premium on life insurance policy. The jury returned the following special verdict: “We find for the plaintiff in the sum of 1248.24, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question of law reserved, to wit: We find that at-the time the note in suit was given by the defendant, Caroline Richmond, she was a married woman, the wife of D. Richmond; that said note was given in payment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There is nothing in the third and fourth specifications of error that would justify a reversal of the judgment. The first and second specifications relate to the question of law reserved. That question has been so fully considered and satisfactorily disposed of by the learned president of the court below, in his opinion sent up with the record, that little, if anything, can be added thereto; and we- therefore affirm the judgment on Iris opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Bank of Commerce v. First National BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1898
- Howard v. BurnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- First National Bank v. TaylorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Children's Aid Society v. BenfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Lillis v. Krack, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.