Legal Opinion

Grange Natl. Bank v. Collman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1931No. Appeal 152PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This appeal is from judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in an action on three negotiable promissory notes. The plaintiff is a state bank and avers that it is a holder in due course. The defendant is the maker. They were 90 day notes, made in the fall of 1929 and, in amount, aggregated $2,300. In one, the Annandale Coal Company was the payee and in two of them, the Penn Brook Coal Company. The statement averred, and the affidavit admitted, that the face of each of the three notes was the aggregate of a number of notes which had preceded it, in transactions…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Buehler v. United States Fashion Plate Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. United Security Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Central National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  3. Dominion Trust Co. v. HildnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  4. National Union Fire Insurance v. Mellon National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Yetter v. Delaware Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Grange Nat. Bank, Etc. v. CollmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Haselbush v. Alsco of Colorado, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1966
  3. Bell, SEC. of Banking v. AubelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Security Tr. Co. of Pottstown v. HubertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API