Harper v. Young
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. -2 of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 124. The action was assumpsit on a promissory note brought by the holder, Charles A. Harper, against the maker, William Young. A narr in assumpsit was filed, and the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. -2 of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1885, No. 124. The action was assumpsit on a promissory note brought by the holder, Charles A. Harper, against the maker, William Young. A narr in assumpsit was filed, and the defendant pleaded the general issue. The note was as follows: •$1,500. Waukesha, Wis., August 10th, 1883. Seventy days after date, for value received, I promise to pay to H. S. Mills or bearer $1,500 fifteen hundred dollars without defalcation or interest. Wm. Young. [Endorsed] H. S. Mills. The following are the facts as they appeared on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered April 5th, 1886.
2Per curiam
The undoubted evidence proves the note in contention was given in a gambling transaction. The fact that a fraudulent device was superadded to induce the giving of the note, did not destroy the gambling nature of the scheme. The note was made payable to the order of the person' who won the money, in gambling, and in payment of the debt thereby incurred. It matters not that he was not as active in procuring the execution of the note as his accomplice. That there was concerted action between them is very evident. The foundation of the…
3Cited by4 opinions
- Irwin v. MarquettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
- Northern National Bank v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Dauler v. HartleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Root v. MerriamUnited States Circuit Court · 1886