Legal Opinion

Miners Savings Bank v. Naylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 14, 1941No. Appeal, 130PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Parker,

This is a suit in assumpsit on a promissory note which contained a material alteration. The case was called for trial before a jury and, after plaintiff had produced his proofs and made certain offers, a compulsory nonsuit was entered. The appeal, which was taken from a refusal to take off the nonsuit, raises questions of pleading and procedure.

The plaintiff set forth in its statement of claim a copy of a promissory note of this tenor: “Scranton, Pa., Sept. 2, 1931. On demand after date for value received I promise to pay to the order of ourselves $35000°%oo. The…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wright v. Eureka Tempered Copper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  2. Goldberg v. FriedrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Rutherford Water Co. v. Harrisburg.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Trabue v. WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Borough v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Bata v. Central-Penn National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Saracina v. CotoiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Kilian v. Allegheny County DistributorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  5. Esso Standard Oil Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API