Spitzel v. Hunt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 85, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, No. 2,352, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Leopold Spitzel et al., trading as Sanford Spitzel, Copartners, trading as Leopold Spitzel & Bros. Assumpsit against the indorser of a promissory note. Before Moschzisker, J. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $906.58. Defendant appealed. ■ Errors assigned were the instructions quoted in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
This action was brought on a promissory note, signed by Francis J. Lingg, dated November 28, 1902, for the sum of $694.75 payable four months after date, to the order of Isaac P. Hunt at No. 125'South Seventh street, and indorsed, Isaac P. Hunt, Nathan Doras, Leopold Spitzel & Brothers, and others. The note was not paid at maturity and the plaintiffs were obliged to lift the note from a bank which then held it, and have brought this suit against the defendant as an indorser. The contention of the defendant was that he was an accommodation indorser, and in addition to his…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Reichenbach v. RuddachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Burke v. Maxwell's AdministratorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Linn v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Ditmars v. Commonwealth ex rel. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Mattern v. McDivittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sanders v. StotesburySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Shipp v. SchmittSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Commonwealth v. GrossSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Sanders v. StotesburySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930