Legal Opinion
Sterrett v. Hydro-United Tire Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 25, 1929No. 14454PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
The statement of claim shows that this is a suit upon, five promissory notes, aggregating $100,000, all of which were made by the defendant, a Delaware corporation. Three of the notes, aggregating $50,000, were made to the order of Robert L. Pierrepont, a citizen of New York, and delivered to him for value. The other two notes, aggregating $50,000, were made to the order of Seth L. Pierrepont. a citizen of Connecticut, and delivered to him for value. The notes, being unpaid at maturity, were thereafter indorsed in blank by the Pierreponts, the holders, and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Holmes v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Davis v. MillsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1900
- Lipschitz v. Napa Fruit Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1915
- Benedict v. SeiberlingDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1927
- Chase v. Sheldon Roller Mills Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Michigan Trust Co. v. OhaffeeDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1942