Bobst v. Gring
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Berks Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 60, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Samuel Bobst v. Wallace Gring. Assumpsit to recover money voluntarily paid. Before ErMENTROUT, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $190.31. Defendant appealed. . Error assigned among others was in discharging rule for judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Obbady, J.,
The plaintiff, Samuel Bobst, held a public sale of horses, wagons, etc., and pursuant to a previous arrangement sold a horse belonging to Wallace Gring, the defendant, to one Leo Schoetzle. In payment of his purchase Schoetzle gave a promissorynote, dated February 15,1902, for $161, due eight months afterwards “ to the order of Samuel Bobst,” and signed by himself and F. B. Banman. Bobst indorsed the note and delivered it to Gring, who soon thereafter deposited it in a local bank for collection. At its maturity, on October 15th, it was regularly protested for nonpayment.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gould v. McFallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Natcher v. NatcherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Real Estate Saving Institution v. LinderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Schoenfeld v. City of BradfordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Finnel v. Brew ex rel. MackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kennedy's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Johnson v. HernigSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- McClure v. Greene County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Greene County1928