Houston v. McCaslin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 20, March T., 1916, by defendants from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1912, No. 93, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Houston & Scott, Inc., to the use of Fred. W. Denniston, v. Maria Y. McCaslin and James McCaslin. Assumpsit by holder against makers of a promissory note. Before O’Boyle, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $560.92. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 20, March T., 1916, by defendants from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., June T., 1912, No. 93, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Houston & Scott, Inc., to the use of Fred. W. Denniston, v. Maria Y. McCaslin and James McCaslin. Assumpsit by holder against makers of a promissory note. Before O’Boyle, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $560.92. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Williams, J.,
The appellants contracted with Houston & Scott, Inc., to build them a house and in part payment they gave a promissory note for $500 and a judgment note for the same amount as collateral security. The judgment note was entered of record, May 7, 1912, and after various transfers was finally assigned in July, 1912, to Denniston, the use-plaintiff. Houston & Scott, Inc., having failed without completing the house, the appellants petitioned for the opening of the judgment on the ground that there had been a fraudulent use made of the notes *30and that Denniston was not- a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Camden National Bank v. Fries-Breslin Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Catasauqua National Bank v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- National Bank v. PalmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Bitner v. DiehlSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Transbel Investment Co., Inc. v. ScottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- South Side Bank of Scranton v. RaineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Gordon, SEC. of Banking v. MapelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- St. Clair v. HastingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920