Heilbruner & Co. v. Wayte
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson county. In the court below this was an action of assumpsit by Robert Wayte against L. Heilbruner, L. Einstine, and J. Adler, of the firm of L. Heilbruner & Co., as guarantors of the note of William Kelso for $515. Wayte had sold to Heilbruner & Co. a quantity of timber for $1000 ;.part being paid in cash, and the note of Kelso,'endorsed by Heilbruner k Co., for $515 was given for the balance.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson county. In the court below this was an action of assumpsit by Robert Wayte against L. Heilbruner, L. Einstine, and J. Adler, of the firm of L. Heilbruner & Co., as guarantors of the note of William Kelso for $515. Wayte had sold to Heilbruner & Co. a quantity of timber for $1000 ;.part being paid in cash, and the note of Kelso,'endorsed by Heilbruner k Co., for $515 was given for the balance. At the time of the transaction, Wayte told Heilbruner & Co. that he wished both their names and Kelso’s on the note, and Heilbruner & Co. told Kelso to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Agnbw, J.
We discover no substantial error in the charge of the court below. It is true the judge omitted in his statement material facts bearing upon the ease ; but this was prejudicial to the plaintiff and not to the defendant. The proof is clear and without contradiction that the note in question was given by Heilbruner & Co. upon the purchase of the timber, and by their bargain -was to be endorsed by them. They were the purchasers of the timber, and were to pay for it by getting Kelso’s note — and did so; and at the time of the transaction he was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Langstaff v. LangstaffOhio Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by2 opinions
- E. B. Weed & Co. v. WeinbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Sutton v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906