Heydt v. Frey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
January Term', 1888, No. 173, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Berks County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action of debt, May term, 1885, No. 46. This was an action of debt by Isaac Frey and Jeremiah Dierolf, executors of Sarah Boyer, deceased, on a sealed promissory note, dated April 1, 1880, signed by David Heydt. The note was for $850, payable with interest to the order of Sarah Boyer, one year after date.
Read the full summary
January Term', 1888, No. 173, E. D., Error to the Common Pleas of Berks County to review a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action of debt, May term, 1885, No. 46. This was an action of debt by Isaac Frey and Jeremiah Dierolf, executors of Sarah Boyer, deceased, on a sealed promissory note, dated April 1, 1880, signed by David Heydt. The note was for $850, payable with interest to the order of Sarah Boyer, one year after date. The case was first tried in October, 1886, and a verdict was rendered for the defendant. The judgment was reversed by the supreme court. See Frey v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Gbeen:
After a patient examination of the extended offer of proof rejected by the learned court below, we are unable to discover any material difference in it from the testimony given on the former trial. The note in suit was an absolute obligation for the payment of $850 one year after date with interest at 5 per cent. It is impossible that this note can be treated as in any manner a contract to pay interest only to the payee Sarah Boyer, and the principal sum either not at all or 'to Mrs. Heydt, upon the footing that it was her money, received from her mother, Mrs.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rearich v. SwinehartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849
- Rearick's Executors v. RearickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pairque v. OrtolanoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1916