Union Trust Co. v. Evans
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 190, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1910, No. 63, for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of Union Trust Company of Lancaster, Pa., v. E. E. Evans. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Hassler, P. J. The note in suit was as follows: “ $- ' October 26, 1909. “ Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of Jas.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 190, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1910, No. 63, for plaintiff non obstante veredicto in case of Union Trust Company of Lancaster, Pa., v. E. E. Evans. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Hassler, P. J. The note in suit was as follows: “ $- ' October 26, 1909. “ Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of Jas. B. McCormick Two Hundred and Fifty - x|100 Dollars, 250.xx, at the Lititz Springs National Bank, of Lititz, Pa. “ Without defalcation for value received, without interest, full payment for Penna. Finance and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The note in question was dated October 26, 1909, and was payable to the order of James B. McCormick six months after date. At the bottom were written the words : “Full payment for Penna. Finance & Securities Co. stock.” The defendant testified that the note was given for stock and that he never got the stock, but this testimony was struck out. We therefore come directly to the testimony as to what occurred on November 13. The defendant testified that on that day McCormick came to his office with a stranger, that McCormick had the note in his possession and wanted (we…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Maynes v. AtwaterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879
- Meyer v. ShicklerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
3Cited by2 opinions
- Helman v. StrongNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Schoenfeld v. FuhrmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914