Scharff v. Stump
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, Ocfc. T., 1902, by Richard Lechner, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1901, No. 50, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Willoughby Scharff v. Emma C. Stump, H. W. Stump and Richard Lechner. Assumpsit on promissory note. Before Ermentrotjt, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, Ocfc. T., 1902, by Richard Lechner, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., June T., 1901, No. 50, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Willoughby Scharff v. Emma C. Stump, H. W. Stump and Richard Lechner. Assumpsit on promissory note. Before Ermentrotjt, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. The court charged as follows : Gentlemen of the jury: The plaintiff, Willoughby Scharff, presents a note signed by Emma C. Stump, H. W. Stump and Richard Lechner. The signatures to this note are not disputed. The amount of the note was originally $800. Interest from May 1,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Pouter, J.,
The plaintiff is the holder of the promissory note upon which he has sued. The note is signed by Emma 0. Stump, H. W. Stump and Richard Lechner in the order indicated. The body of the note contains only the names of Emma C. Stump and her husband, H. W. Stump. The latter is now dead. The defense to the note as to Emma 0. Stump is that she was a surety for her husband. All of the testimony on both sides of the case goes to prove the fact alleged. The court left the question to the jury on the credibility of the witnesses. Here was no error.
The defense as to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gaston v. VitteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917