Biery v. Haines
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Peter Biery brought an action of debt in the Court below against Lucas Haines, John Shaffer and Adam Haines. The sheriff returned nihil habet as to Lucas Haines. The plaintiff filed the following statement.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Peter Biery brought an action of debt in the Court below against Lucas Haines, John Shaffer and Adam Haines. The sheriff returned nihil habet as to Lucas Haines. The plaintiff filed the following statement. “ The plaintiff’s claim upon which the above suit is brought, is on a promissory note executed by the above named defendants to the plaintiff in the following words, to wit; ‘North Whitehall, December 7th, 1835. On the first day of April, in the yéar one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, we, or either of us, promise to pay to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J.
The plaintiff in error was the plaintiff below, and commenced this action in debt by a writ of summons ad responden-dum against Lucas Plaines, John Shaffer and Adam Haines, which was returned ‘ served’ by the sheriff, to whom it was directed and delivered, upon John Shaffer and Adam Haines, and ‘nihil habet’ as to Lucas Haines. Shaffer and Adam Plaines appeared by their attorney, and pleaded non assumpserunt. The plaintiff’s claim was founded upon what he, in his statement, alleged was a promissory note; and that it was executed by the three…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clarke v. PierceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Bowman v. BerkeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Steininger v. Hoch'sSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Merchants Banking Trust Co. v. Klimosky, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1927