Brooks v. Merchants N. Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. ■ No. 116 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 24 September Term 1888, C. P. No. 3. On August 17, 1888, the Merchants National Bank issued a summons in assumpsit against Martha Brooks andW.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 8 OE PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. ■ No. 116 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 24 September Term 1888, C. P. No. 3. On August 17, 1888, the Merchants National Bank issued a summons in assumpsit against Martha Brooks andW. Howard Brooks, now or late copartners, trading under the name of M. Brooks & Co. ' The action was on promissory notes held by the plaintiff, drawn or indorsed by M. Brooks & Co., and all dated subsequent to January 1, 1888. The plaintiff’s statement contained copies of the notes, with the usual averments, and was signed “ Hartman…
1Per curiam
The defendant’s affidavit does not disclose any defence. "While she was not liable upon the original notes by reason of her coverture, yet when the notes were renewed the case was different. The notes sued upon were given since the passage of the act of June 3, 1887, P. L. 332. The effect of said act was to make a married woman’s obligation binding upon her, unless it be as “accommodation indorser, guarantor,-or surety of another; ” in this case she was neither. The notes in question were the notes of a firm of which she was a member, and the moral obligation to pay the notes given during…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Bailey v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Welch v. EllisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Nelson v. DiffenderfferMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Geiselbrecht v. GeiselbrechtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Holden v. BanesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.