Dallmeyer v. Dallmeyer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, No. 139 Oct. T., 1888, to C. P. No. 2, of Allegheny Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action of assumpsit by Margaret L. Dallmeyer against Plenty Dallmeyer, who survived Plenty Dallmeyer, Jr., late partners as H. Dallmeyer & Son, at January T. 1888, No. 77. The affidavit of claim averred that the defendants, H. Dallmeyer & Son, were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $14,500, which she had loaned to the firm, and for which amount she had…
Read the full summary
Error, No. 139 Oct. T., 1888, to C. P. No. 2, of Allegheny Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action of assumpsit by Margaret L. Dallmeyer against Plenty Dallmeyer, who survived Plenty Dallmeyer, Jr., late partners as H. Dallmeyer & Son, at January T. 1888, No. 77. The affidavit of claim averred that the defendants, H. Dallmeyer & Son, were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $14,500, which she had loaned to the firm, and for which amount she had drawn two checks, one for $12,000, and another for $2500, both to the order of H. Dallmeyer & Son. Pleas, not given. At…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The first assignment of error cannot be sustained. No exception was taken to the evidence complained of when it was admitted, and the motion to strike out was properly disregarded. Oswald v. Kennedy, 48 Pa. 9.
The second assignment is answered by saying that it would have been a grave error not to have submitted the case to the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oswald v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
3Cited by1 opinion
- Yoder v. ReynoldsMontana Supreme Court · 1903