Hazlett v. Bragdon
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 79, April T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment' of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co.,, April T., 1896, No. 860, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 79, April T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment' of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co.,, April T., 1896, No. 860, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover on a promissory note. Before Frazer, J. It appears from the evidence that this action was brought by Samuel Hazlett against Elizabeth Bragdon as indorser of a promissory note, dated October 29, 1895, signed by F. H. Bragdon, to the ordei of Mrs. Elizabeth Bragdon, at three months, for #600. It ivas indorsed by Elizabeth Bragdon and afterwards by Alex. W. Hart. The principal question raised upon the trial of the cause was whether…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinión by
Orlady, J.,
Suit was brought by the plaintiff on a promissory note, as follows:
“ $600. Pittsburg, Pa., October 29,1895.
“ Three months after date I promise to pay to the order of Mrs. Elizabeth Bragdon six hundred and dollars, at
without defalcation for value received.
“ (Signed) E. H. Bragdon.
“ Indorsed: Elizabeth Bragdon, Alex W. Hart.”
Before maturity this note was delivered by Alex W. Hart to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration.
*584The plaintiff was a banker residing in Washington, Penna., personally acquainted with Alex W. Hart and knew that he was employed by T. H. Bragdon whose…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McGruder v. Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Haly v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Pierce v. StruthersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856
- Smith v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855