Lingg & Bro. v. Blummer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1878, No. 100. Assumpsit by Charles E. Blummer against Lingg & Bro., on a promissory note drawn to the order of Joseph E. Stokes, and by him endorsed.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1878, No. 100. Assumpsit by Charles E. Blummer against Lingg & Bro., on a promissory note drawn to the order of Joseph E. Stokes, and by him endorsed. One of the defendants filed an affidavit of defence which averred that the note in suit was given by defendants to Elliott, a note-broker, with instructions to sell the same and pay over the proceeds to defendants; that at the time Elliott received said noto Stokes endorsed it for defendant’s accommodation; that Elliott alleged said Stokes was indebted to him, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur
This suit was by the endorsee against the makers of a promissory note. Judgment was taken for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. This is assigned for error. The affidavit avers the note was delivered to a note-broker, with instructions to sell the same and pay over the proceeds thereof to the makers; but after he received it he assumed to hold it under a claim of right and refused to return it or pay over the proceeds to the makers. The strongest averment tending to impeach the note in the hands of the plaintiff below is that the deponent is informed and believes the plain*520tiff is not…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Loeb v. WeilCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1913