De Hass v. Roberts
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania
At Law. On motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. Action by Elizabeth G-. De Hass against John D. Roberts, as survivor of John Dibert and John H. Dibert, late partners as John Dibert & Co., on an obligation to pay money.
1Opinion of the Court
AGHESOjST, Circuit Judge.
1. The first reserved question of law is “whether, under the evidence, to wit, the writing sued on, the attached guaranty, and the mortgage securing said obligation, — the writing sued on dated the 15th day of June, 1867, for $3,000, payable to the order of John D. Knox & Co., — is a negotiable commercial instrument.” By this instrument, which was signed at Topeka, Kan., the makers, R. J. and Ida McFarland, promise to pay to John D. Knox & Co., or order, five years after date, the sum of $3,000, with interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum to be paid…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Trust Co. v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Seaton v. ScovillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- McCrum v. CorbySupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- South Bend Iron Works v. PaddockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Merrill v. HurleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Clark v. SkeenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- Holliday State Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Citizens' Savings Bank of Columbus v. LandisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- First National Bank v. HenryIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.