Foust v. Renno
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county. In the court below, Daniel R. Foust brought an action of debt against David Renno and John Miller, upon the following bond:— “Know all men by these presents, that we, David Renno, of Womelsdorf, and John Miller, of Bernville, and both of Pennsylvania, are held and firmly bound unto Daniel R. Foust, of Bern-ville, and state aforesaid, in the sum of $T56.48, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the…
Read the full summary
In error from the Court of Common Pleas of Berks county. In the court below, Daniel R. Foust brought an action of debt against David Renno and John Miller, upon the following bond:— “Know all men by these presents, that we, David Renno, of Womelsdorf, and John Miller, of Bernville, and both of Pennsylvania, are held and firmly bound unto Daniel R. Foust, of Bern-ville, and state aforesaid, in the sum of $T56.48, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid to the said Daniel R. Foust, or to- his certain attorney, executors, administrators, or assigns, to which payment well and…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
The decision in Marshall v. Gougler, so far from sustaining the direction of the court below, is against it. In that case, the persons whose names appeared at the foot of the clause of attestation, were not present at any part of the act of execution; and one of them testified, that he subscribed his name at a subsequent time, when the obligee was going to assign the single bill, under a belief that he was called as a witness to the assignment, on which, it was held, the court properly left the jury to decide whether the alteration of the instrument was fraudulent or accidental. In the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shiffer v. MosierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Swank v. KaufmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Everhart v. FulmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914