Kline v. Seidel
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 21, Nov. T., 1895, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 168. This case came up before the court below on an appeal from a justice in favor of plaintiff for $232.70, in a suit by Sarah Kline v. John D. Seidel and Augustus Weidner, on a promissory note. The proceeds of the note were for use of Seidel, who paid the interest for some time. The suit was brought more than six years after maturity of the note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 21, Nov. T., 1895, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1894, No. 168. This case came up before the court below on an appeal from a justice in favor of plaintiff for $232.70, in a suit by Sarah Kline v. John D. Seidel and Augustus Weidner, on a promissory note. The proceeds of the note were for use of Seidel, who paid the interest for some time. The suit was brought more than six years after maturity of the note. The defense of Weidner was the statute of limitations. Errors assigned were, (1) refusal of nonsuit; (2, 3) charge of the court, reciting it as…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
McCarthy, J.,
In this case John D. Seidel and Augustus Weidner were the joint makers of a promissory note to Sarah Kline; it was dated April 13, 1887, and was payable one year after date. Seidel received the amount of the note and paid interest thereon for the years 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891. Weidner never paid any interest on the note. A suit was brought upon it in August, 1894, more than six years from the date of its maturity. The only question is, whether there was a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt on the part of Weidner to take it out of the Statute of Limitations.
The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Landis v. RothSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Palmer v. GillespieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
- Burr v. BurrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Lawson v. McCartneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883