Bowman v. Robb
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Lycoming county. July 26. This was an action of debt on two written contracts, The defendant pleaded non est factum, non assumpsit, statute of limitations and payment, &e. The case was tried at a special court, held by Woodward, P. J., at Williamsport. At the trial, the plaintiff called George F. Boal to prove the signatures of the parties to the obligation on which the action was founded.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Lycoming county. July 26. This was an action of debt on two written contracts, The defendant pleaded non est factum, non assumpsit, statute of limitations and payment, &e. The case was tried at a special court, held by Woodward, P. J., at Williamsport. At the trial, the plaintiff called George F. Boal to prove the signatures of the parties to the obligation on which the action was founded. He testified that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Orrin Forsyth and Joshua Bowman; that he had seen them Write frequently; that he-believed their names, as signed…
1Per curiam
There were actually two seals on the face of each note — the one made by a printed stamp, and the other by an exterior circumflex of a pen. But even if that were not so, there was intrinsic evidence that Bowman had adopted the seal as it stood upon the paper, and the jury might possibly have disregarded the extrinsic evidence, had the two been incompatible. Let the judgment be affirmed for the reasons given in the charge.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hess's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Brisbin v. BogolyUnited States District Court · 1944
- Lundvall v. Camp Hill School District, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1972