Rice v. Groff
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: to July Term 1867, No. 22. -This was an action of assumpsit, brought March 6th 1862, by Levi H. Groff against Dan Rice, upon a promissory note made by one McLaren, of which Rice was the endorser.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: to July Term 1867, No. 22. -This was an action of assumpsit, brought March 6th 1862, by Levi H. Groff against Dan Rice, upon a promissory note made by one McLaren, of which Rice was the endorser. Judgment had been recovered upon the note against McLaren December 22d 1860, and an execution issued thereon, to which the sheriff returned that he had levied upon certain goods, which were claimed by Edwin P. Christy, and took a rule to interplead which was made absolute February 9th 1861. On the trial of the ease, the plaintiff offered the note and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, February 13th 1868, by
Thompson, C. J.
It appears that the plaintiff in error was an accommodation endorser for one D. McLaren of a note for $300, negotiated to Levi H. Groff, the defendant in error, in due course. Not being paid at maturity it was protested, of which the endorser had notice. The holder sued the maker and obtained judgment. On this he issued execution, and levied on a large amount of circus property, supposed to be the property of the defendant in the execution. But the sale was prevented by an interpleader issue at the instance of a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Petri v. MannyWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Scott v. SmithIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
- Hartman v. HefflefingerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Zacharias, Admrs. v. WagnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924