Cassidy v. Kreamer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
July Term, 1887, No. 5, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Clinton County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendant in an action of assumpsit, September Term, 1886, No, 22. The facts as they appeared at the trial before Mayer, P. J., are stated in bis opinion (filed after directing a verdict for the defendant), as follows: This suit was brought by James Cassidy, indorsee, against Charles Kreamer, indorser, on a promissory note, wbicb is as follows: Lock Haven,…
Read the full summary
July Term, 1887, No. 5, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Clinton County to review a judgment on a verdict for the defendant in an action of assumpsit, September Term, 1886, No, 22. The facts as they appeared at the trial before Mayer, P. J., are stated in bis opinion (filed after directing a verdict for the defendant), as follows: This suit was brought by James Cassidy, indorsee, against Charles Kreamer, indorser, on a promissory note, wbicb is as follows: Lock Haven, Pa., September 1, 1885. Pour months after date I promise to pay to the order of Charles Kreamer, at the Eirst National Bank…
1Opinion of the Court
Pur Curiam :
The law concerning notice of the protest of negotiable paper ñas been so well disposed of by the opinion of the learned judge of-the court below that further comment on that branch of the case is unnecessary. Indeed, the only exception we have for consideration is that which complains of the ruling of the court in refusing to submit to the jury the alleged disputed fact of the time when the defendant actually received notice of the dishonor of the note. But the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. Had the Curwensville Bank mailed the notice to Kreamer on the 11th of January,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kramer v. M'DowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844