Peters v. Rothermel
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 109, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., April T., 1902, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of David K. Peters and Sarah Kaufman, Administrators of Sarah Peters, deceased, v. John K. Rothermel. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Ermentrout, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 109, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., April T., 1902, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of David K. Peters and Sarah Kaufman, Administrators of Sarah Peters, deceased, v. John K. Rothermel. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Ermentrout, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court charged as follows: It appears from the testimony that John K. Rothermel made and delivered his promissory note dated April 1, 1886, which reads as follows: “ Maidencreek, April 1, 1886. “ One year after date I promise to pay to Mrs.…
1DissentRice, P. J.
The note in suit was dated April 1, 1886, and was payable one year after date. Sarah Peters, the payee, died January 31, 1893, letters of administration upon her estate were issued December 7, 1901, and this action was brought by her administrators March 1, 1902. In their statement of claim they declared on the note, and averred that the defendant had paid the interest up to April 1, 1896. Attached to their statement and made part thereof, was what purported to be a copy of the note and the indorsements thereon, as follows:
“ April 1 interest paid for one year..... 1887.
April 1 interest paid…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dinan v. Supreme Council of Catholic Mutual Benefit Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Addams v. SeitzingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Shaffer v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Hart v. BucherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Cremer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.