Moul v. Pfeiffer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 2, March T., 1903, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Oct. T., 1901. No. 315, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Ellen J. Moul v. J. Q. Pfeiffer and E. A. Keasey. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $76.04. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was the refusal to admit the evidence referred to in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
W. D. Porter, J.,
The defendants seek to avoid payment of their promissory note given to the plaintiff for the purchase price of a horse, and at the trial in the court below alleged failure of consideration. The horse had been sold by the plaintiff to Pfeiffer on March 30, 1901, and the note bore that date. The defendants offered in evidence the record of an action of replevin, brought on June 5, 1901, by one Wallace against Pfeiffer, for the horse in question, the offer as made in the court below being stated to be “ for the purpose of proving the docket entries, which show a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Morrison v. WhitfieldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Montgomery v. MichelsonPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1927
- Yancye v. General Finance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926