Dushane v. Allen
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Payette County. No. 225 Jan. Term, 1884. This was an action, brought in the Court below by James Allen against A. O. Tinstman, doing business as A. Overholt & Co., and J. M. Dushane, security. Suit was brought on a note for $2,990.80, signed by A. Overholt & Co. and J. M. Dushane as security. It was dated 17th day of Jan., 1874, and due in one year.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Payette County. No. 225 Jan. Term, 1884. This was an action, brought in the Court below by James Allen against A. O. Tinstman, doing business as A. Overholt & Co., and J. M. Dushane, security. Suit was brought on a note for $2,990.80, signed by A. Overholt & Co. and J. M. Dushane as security. It was dated 17th day of Jan., 1874, and due in one year. In Jan., 1875, about the time of the maturity of this note, James Allen called upon Tinstman, and had Tinstman make an agreement by which Allen, in consideration of the payment of the legal rate of interest of 6 per…
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on the 16th Feb., 1885, in the following opinion:
2Per curiam
The unquestioned facts of this case bring it within the law as declared in Hartman vs. Danner, 74 Pa. 36; Shaffer vs. Clark, 90 Pa. 94; Rumberger vs. Golden, 3 Out. 34; and kindred cases and fully sustain this judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Hartman v. DannerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Shaffer v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879