First National Bank v. Furman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 10, Feb. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P., Tioga Co., Nov. T. 1891, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 10, Feb. T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P., Tioga Co., Nov. T. 1891, No. 145, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note. Before Mitchell, P. J. It appeared from tlie evidence that plaintiff’s claim is founded on the following promissory note: “ $583 33. Gaines, Pa., July 15, 1893. “ One year after date, for value received, we, or either of us, promise to pay Faulkner & Co., or order, five hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents at the Farmers and Trader’s Bank, of Westfield, Pa., with interest at 6 per cent, per annum; interest payable…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
Thirteen defendants were included in the action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff in this case in the court below. Of these ten were regularly summoned by the sheriff. As to three he returned the writ non est inventus. A general appearance was entered for the defendants. This brought them all into court as fully to all intents and purposes as if the summons had been regularly served by the sheriff upon all and duly so returned. This has been the universal practice in Pennsylvania, recognized and confirmed in Scott v. Israel, 2 Binney, 145, and later in Hatch v. Stitt,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Newbold v. PennockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Hatch v. StittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- Moseley v. Selma National BankAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911
- Bill Posting Sign Co. v. JermonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Louchheim v. MaguireSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Bank of the United States v. Shetter, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1927