De Hass v. Dibert
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Bennsylvania. These were three actions by Elizabeth G. De Hass against Kate ft. Dibert, as administratrix of John II. Dibert; Martha Dibert, as ad-ministratrix of Joint Dibert; and John B. Roberts, as surviving partner of John Dibert & Co., — upon the indorsement of a promissory note. Judgment was rendered in the circuit court for the defendants. 59 Fed. 853. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
BUTLER, District Judge.
The suits were brought on indorse-ments of a promissory note and its accompanying interest coupons; and by agreement; of parties were tried together. After a jury had been sworn, a paper was filed consenting to a verdict for the plaintiff in S3,837.60, subject to the opinion of the court on the following questions reserved;
“First: Whether under the evidence, to wit, the writing sued on, and the attached guaranty and the mortgage securing said obligation, and the writing *228sued on, dated the 15th day of June, 1887, for §3,000, payable to the order of John D. Knox & Co., is…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- South Bend Iron Works v. PaddockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- Citizens N. Bank v. PiolletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Patterson v. PoindexterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Trainor v. Board of AuditorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Story v. LambMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- National Life Ins. Co. v. HaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Barnwell v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Bennett v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1939
- Nuetzel v. MacKieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Arnett v. ClackArizona Supreme Court · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.