Monticello Distilling Co. v. Dannenhauer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 120, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1909, No. 1324, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Monticello Distilling Company v. Charles F. Dannenhauer. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Wiltbank, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $208.77. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing to enter judgment for defendant n. o. v.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
Both of the assignments of error go to the refusal of the court to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto. The appellant has the affirmative of the proposition, therefore, that the evidence did not warrant the submission of the case to the jury. The action was on three promissory notes given by the defendant to the plaintiff. The execution of the notes was admitted and when they were offered in evidence a prima facie case was made out for the plaintiff. The defense was that the notes were given as part of the consideration for ten barrels of whisky…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Kessler v. PerrongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- State v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
- Edson v. MageeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Steiner v. TurnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Perkins ex rel. Bank of Commerce v. HalprenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Hunter-Wilson Distilling Co. v. Foust Distilling Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1949