Legal Opinion

Ebert v. Johns

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 2, 1903No. Appeal, No. 18PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 18, Jan. T., 1903, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Adams Co., Jan. T., 1901, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Augustus H. Ebert, trading as B. Ebert & Sons, v. S. L. Johns and Harry N. Gitt, trading as the L. M. Alientan Hardware Company. Assumpsit to collect a debt of another alleged to have been assumed by defendants. Before Swope, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court, and by the report of Sargent v. Johns, ante, p. 386. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,701.70. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

This case grows out of the same transaction as that of Sargent et al. v. Johns, ante, p. 386, and most of the questions involved have been discussed and determined in that case. But there is one important feature in which there is a wide difference. In the former case there were two grounds on which the jury were entitled to find the liability of defendants, first that they had in fact assumed the payment of Sargent’s claim, and secondly that they had legally assumed it by estoppel after the publication of notice to Alleman’s creditors and the latter’s change of…

2Cited by11 opinions

Melroy v. KemmererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
Oien v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
General Contract Purchase Corp. v. BitomskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
Rosenblum v. EdwardsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
Zerodec Mega Corp. v. Terstep of Texas, Inc. (In Re Zerodec Mega Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.