Harper v. O'Neil
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 132, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1898, No. 667, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Stowe, P. J. At the trial the defendant alleged that she was an accommodation maker of the note in suit which had been signed by her and indorsed by her husband.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 132, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1898, No. 667, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Stowe, P. J. At the trial the defendant alleged that she was an accommodation maker of the note in suit which had been signed by her and indorsed by her husband. Plaintiff proved that he loaned the money to the husband upon representations made by him that he needed the money to pay physicians’ bills contracted during his wife’s illness. The court charged in part as follows: [The question in the ease is whether or…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
The transaction between the parties comes so clearly within the inhibition of section 2 of the Act of June 8,1893, P. L. 344, which prohibits a married woman from becoming “ accommodation indorser, maker, guarantor or surety for another,” that the defendant’s request to the court to charge that under all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover should have been granted. The plaintiff’s agent testified: “Mr. O’Neil called on me and asked me to loan him some money, $1,500, representing to me that his wife had been sick in the hospital. He required the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Kemper v. RichardsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Bank v. ShortSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Industrial Trust Co. v. CanteraSuperior Court of Delaware · 1933
- Goldsleger v. CarraccioloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. RagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.