Daniel v. Lance
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 70, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1899, No. 88, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles A. Daniel v. Charles D. Lance. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Wilt bank, J. At the trial the court under objection and exception by defendant admitted in evidence the notes in suit. [1] ■The court refused to permit a witness for the defendant to testify that the notes were signed by Joseph P. Lance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 70, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1899, No. 88, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles A. Daniel v. Charles D. Lance. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Wilt bank, J. At the trial the court under objection and exception by defendant admitted in evidence the notes in suit. [1] ■The court refused to permit a witness for the defendant to testify that the notes were signed by Joseph P. Lance. Exception. [2] Defendant presented the following points : 1. ,That before the plaintiff can recover the jury must find from the evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Portee., J.,
The plaintiff had proved that the two notes in question had been given for a debt of Lance Sons, and that Charles D. Lance had from 1886 to the time the notes were given represented that he was a member of the firm doing business under that style, and that said Charles D. Lance had for said firm transacted the business with the plaintiff; after this preliminary. proof the notes were properly received in evidence, and the first specification of error is without merit.
Charles D. Lance was the only defendant served and the issue was tried as to him alone. The plaintiff had…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tilli v. VandegriftSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Daniel v. LanceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902