Legal Opinion

Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Holmes

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 23, 1937No. 3962PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WATSON, District Judge.

This action, on two promissory notes, is now before the court on the defendant’s motion for judgment for want of a sufficient reply to the new matter set forth in the defendant’s affidavit of defense, and raises the question whether the action is barred by limitations.

The pleadings present the following facts:

The defendant indorsed two demand promissory notes in Chicago, 111.; one dated December 4, 1922, and the other dated December 28, 1922, which notes subsequently became the property of the plaintiff, were duly presented for payment, and demand made on May 12, 1924.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mitchell, Receiver of the Liberty Clay Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Tenant v. TenantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
  3. Watson v. BrewsterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Merchants & Planters National Bank of Sherman v. AppleyardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Saltzman v. SaltzmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Industrial Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Sharpe, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1980
  4. Merchants & Planters National Bank of Sherman v. AppleyardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API