Ulrich v. Getz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., May T., 1884, No. 38, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Brubaker, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of tlie court. Verdict and judgmentfor plaintiff for $790.47. Defendants appealed. JErrors assigned among others were (1) in refusing to affirm defendants’ sixth point, which point and answer are as follows: “6. In the alleged conversation between Jos.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 72, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., May T., 1884, No. 38, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit. Before Brubaker, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of tlie court. Verdict and judgmentfor plaintiff for $790.47. Defendants appealed. JErrors assigned among others were (1) in refusing to affirm defendants’ sixth point, which point and answer are as follows: “6. In the alleged conversation between Jos. R. Snyder, Jacob S. Snyder and Levi G. Getz, neither the date, the amount nor the maker of the note spoken of was mentioned. Neither was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
This action was brought on a promissory note made by Levi G. Getz, for $350, to the order of Harriet Donaven. The maker having died, the action was duly continued against his administrators. The note was transferred by the payee to the plaintiff after maturity, and is, therefore, subject to any defense which might be made against the payee, growing out of or connected with the note or attaching to it while in the paj^ee’s hands : Long v. Rhawn, 75 Pa. 128. There is no denial that the money for which the note was given was received by the maker in settlement of a claim of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Long v. RhawnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Third Reformed Dutch Church v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893