Stybr v. Walter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeals, Nos. 123, 124 and 125, Oct. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1919, Nos. 1740, 1777 and 1778, on verdicts for defendants, in cases of J. Stybr v. Peter G. Walter, J. Stybr v. M. N. Greer et al. and J. Stybr v. M. N. Greer et al. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Macfarlane, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeals, Nos. 123, 124 and 125, Oct. T., 1921, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1919, Nos. 1740, 1777 and 1778, on verdicts for defendants, in cases of J. Stybr v. Peter G. Walter, J. Stybr v. M. N. Greer et al. and J. Stybr v. M. N. Greer et al. Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Macfarlane, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed. Errors assigned were various rulings and instructions, sufficiently appearing by the opinion of the Supreme Court, quoting record.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moschziskeb,
This and two other like actions were tried together in the court below and argued as one case here, the facts in each being substantially the same. All three cases arise out of claims by plaintiff against defendants, individually and collectively, on a series of notes amounting to $19,000, given by the latter to secure the former for advances made by him to a corporation in which all parties concerned were stockholders. After plaintiff had advanced considerable sums to the corporation in question, and when further funds were required for the purpose of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. Standard Steel Car Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Murdoch v. BierySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Sorber v. MastersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Colonial Trust Co. v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Lesley v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fortis v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941