Volkenand v. Drum
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 116, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, A. F. Volkenand, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1887, No. 576, on verdict for defendant, Milton Drum. Issue to determine validity of judgment note. At the trial, before RrcE, P. J., it appeared that the note in question was given as part of the consideration in a sale of a bottling establishment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 116, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, A. F. Volkenand, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1887, No. 576, on verdict for defendant, Milton Drum. Issue to determine validity of judgment note. At the trial, before RrcE, P. J., it appeared that the note in question was given as part of the consideration in a sale of a bottling establishment. Defendant’s counsel proposed to prove that defendant had been defrauded and deceived by plaintiff, that, at and prior to the time the contract in evidence was signed and executed, plaintiff represented to defendant that he had in connection…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,. On the trial of this issue, directed by the court to determine how much was due on the note, upon which the judgment opened, etc., was entered, the defendant was permitted to introduce testimony to sustain the offer recited in the first specification of error. The objection to the offer was, “ that the evidence was incompetent, its effect being to vary, alter and amend the written agreement which shows the actual contract between the parties.” This objection was not well taken, and hence there was no error in overruling it and receiving the testimony.
The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gibson v. DooleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- Succession of Baily v. BecnelSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1878