Danner v. Hess
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 244, Oct. T., 1901, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., June T., 1901, No. 27, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William H. Danner v. William Pless. Assumpsit by payee against maker of a promissory note. Before Schuyler, P. J. At the trial the court rejected the defendant’s offer of evidence, recited at length in the opinion of the Superior Court, and directed a verdict for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 244, Oct. T., 1901, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., June T., 1901, No. 27, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William H. Danner v. William Pless. Assumpsit by payee against maker of a promissory note. Before Schuyler, P. J. At the trial the court rejected the defendant’s offer of evidence, recited at length in the opinion of the Superior Court, and directed a verdict for plaintiff. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $269.99. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were (1) rejection of offer. (2) In giving binding instruction for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
This is not a suit of an innocent holder for value, of commercial paper, against the maker. The plaintiff is the payee in the note. He offered the note in evidence and rested. The defendant, in order to show that he was not liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the note, made the following offer: “ Defendant proposes to prove by the witness that some time in March, 1898, he arranged with John Roth, now deceased, to borrow from him the sum of $250, it being stipulated by John Roth that a note should be given, with William H. Danner, the plaintiff,as surety; that John…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Conmey v. MacfarlaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- McCarty v. ScanlonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898