Campbell v. Hunt
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 265, October T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., September T.,-1912, No. 5180, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary F. Campbell, Executrix of William O. Campbell, to the use of H. S. J. Sickel v. Michael J. Hunt. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 265, October T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., September T.,-1912, No. 5180, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary F. Campbell, Executrix of William O. Campbell, to the use of H. S. J. Sickel v. Michael J. Hunt. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Ferguson, J. . The note in suit was as follows: “fl,200.00 . June 4th, 1912. “Two months after date I promise to pay to the order of J. P. Mulholland, one thousand two huildred dollars at The Kensington Nat. Bank, Philadelphia. “Without defalcation for valúe received. “With intérest. “M. J.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Tkexlek, J.,
This was a suit upon a promissory note. The defendant called Levine as a witness in order to show that William O. Campbell, who obtained the note of Mulholland the payee therein mentioned before maturity, had notice of an infirmity in the note. The court after hearing his testimony struck it out, holding that he was not a competent witness and barred by Sec. 5 of Act of May 23, 1887, P. L. 158. Wm. O. Campbell-having died, and his right having passed to the plaintiff, the court found that Levine was interested and that such interest was adverse to the right of Campbell-..
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Semple v. CallerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Clark v. SearightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Wood, Bacon & Co. v. KelsoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
3Cited by2 opinions
- Zimmerman v. BrownIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Ratterree v. SchonhardtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932