Kurtz v. Lawrence
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 47, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Beaver Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 534, on verdict for defendants, in case of E. T. Kurtz, Receiver, etc., v. H. J. Lawrence et al. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Baldwin, P. J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was (2) refusal of motion for judgment for plaintiff n. o. v., quoting record.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Brown,
On May 6, 1912, E. T. Kurtz, receiver of the Washington County Coal Company, entered into a written contract with Samuel Hollis to sell him, subject to the approval and confirmation of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, all the property of the company for the sum of $300,000, payable as follows: “Five thousand ($5,000) dollars by approved note at the date of the signing of this agreement, the approval and acceptance of which are hereby acknowledged by the said party of the first part, fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars on June 20, 1912, and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lyons v. BenneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Mars National Bank v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917