First National Bank of Portland v. Hartman Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kenworthey, J.,
The question raised by this appeal is whether defendant, the maker, offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that plaintiff-bank was a holder in due course of the negotiable promissory note on which this suit was brought. It seems to have been conceded that defendant had a good defense as against the payee. The case was tried before Glass J., without a jury, who made a general finding for defendant. After argument heard by three judges of the municipal court, the bank’s exception was dismissed and judgment entered on the finding. The bank has ap pealed.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Harbaugh's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- International Fin. Co. v. Magilansky Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Dull v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Falk & Co. v. South Texas Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Sisemore & Kierbow Co. v. NicholasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Ehnes v. MangSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- CCNB v. Piersol, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County1992