Reiter v. Fruh
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 224, Jan. T., 1892, by-defendants, Granville P. Quinn et. al., sued as trading as E. & G. A. Fruh, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Go., March T., 1891, No. 485, on a verdict for plaintiff, W. Reiter. Assumpsit on promissory note signed “ E. & G. A. Fruh.” The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 224, Jan. T., 1892, by-defendants, Granville P. Quinn et. al., sued as trading as E. & G. A. Fruh, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Go., March T., 1891, No. 485, on a verdict for plaintiff, W. Reiter. Assumpsit on promissory note signed “ E. & G. A. Fruh.” The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Rule I. of the rules of court was as follows: “ Sec. 1. In all actions instituted on any bill, note, bond, recognizance, deed, mortgage, assignment or other instrument of writing for the payment of money, of which a copy or a statement of the place of record authorized by…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The defendant Quinn’s name did not appear in any way upon the note in suit, and it was therefore incumbent on plaintiff to show affirmatively Quinn’s connection with it. The only way in which this was done was by naming Quinn as one of the defendants, and calling them copartners in the caption of the statement. The statement itself contained no averment of the partnership or of Quinn’s membership in it if there was one. This is very slovenly practice, and not to be commended. In courts whose rules require' an affidavit by plaintiff of the truth of the matters…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lancaster County National Bank v. HenningSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895