Liebig Manufacturing Co. v. Hill
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1896, No. 52, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 127, Oct. T., 1898, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1896, No. 52, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit. Before Livingston, P. J. It appears from the record and evidence that this action was brought by plaintiff against Margaret C. Hill, who resides in this count}', to recover the amount due upon a promissory note for $379.20 made by her, and dated December 28, 1893, payable to the order of Eber E. Hilton at the National Bank of Oxford, and signed by Margaret C. Hill. It is indorsed by Eber E. Hilton and indorsed “ John I. Smith ” and “ John I. Smith…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
When we reviewed a former trial of this case, we said: “We think the court below erred in permitting the introduction of the evidence showing absence of consideration to the maker. It was not matter of defense.” In the trial now under review such evidence was again admitted, and a considerable portion of the charge is devoted to a submission to the jury of the question, whether the plaintiff company acquired the note before or after maturity. This was error.
Smith acquired the note before maturity and for a valuable consideration. As against him the defense of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lord v. Ocean BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Appleton v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1846
- Moore v. BairdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858