Kircher v. Sprenger
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1894, No. 82, on verdict for defendant. Appeal from judgment of justice in favor of the plaintiff 1233.74. Before'Livingston, P. J. This suit was upon a promissory note, given by Mrs. E: E. Sprenger, a widow, to George Kircher. Upon the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered the note in evidence and rested.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 19, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., June T., 1894, No. 82, on verdict for defendant. Appeal from judgment of justice in favor of the plaintiff 1233.74. Before'Livingston, P. J. This suit was upon a promissory note, given by Mrs. E: E. Sprenger, a widow, to George Kircher. Upon the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered the note in evidence and rested. The defense was that the note was given to lift a note of George F. Sprenger, deceased, the late husband of the defendant, and she was not responsible, as he died without leaving any estate.The…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Reeder, J.,
The law of this case is established by the decision in Paxson y. Neilds, 137 Pa. 385, and if the fact was unquestioned and undisputed as to the insolvency of the husband this judgment would have to stand. The only assignment of error which has any merit is the third. Here it is claimed that the court below erred in not submitting to the jury the question of the insolvency of the defendant’s husband, of whose estate she was the administratrix.
It is true as the learned court says, that no inventory was filed, no account presented and no witnesses produced to show that there…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Paxson v. NieldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Grambs v. LynchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Kelly v. McGeheeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Berwald v. RaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898