Cummings v. Boyd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1876, No. 74. Assumpsit brought by James W. Boyd, the holder of a promissory note, against Bobert D. Cummings, who endorsed said note for the accommodation of Isaac Barton & Son, the makers.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term 1876, No. 74. Assumpsit brought by James W. Boyd, the holder of a promissory note, against Bobert D. Cummings, who endorsed said note for the accommodation of Isaac Barton & Son, the makers. The pleas were non-assumpsit, payment with leave, &c., and the case proceeded to trial, when at bar the defendants filed the following special plea:— “And now, on motion of J. M. Moyer, the defendant amends his pleadings as follows, by leave of the court first had and obtained, for a further plea in that behalf, sayeth: The…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
We agree with the court below that the plea of the defendant is sufficient in form, and that, so far, the matter was well ruled. Whilst the rules of special pleading require pleas to be single, yet the defendant is not precluded from introducing several facts into one jdea, provided all tend to produce but a single issue. The matter alleged is the procurement by Barton of the note in suit by false and fraudulent representations, but as this of itself would not be sufficient to affect the holder, a statement is added showing the plaintiff to be a holder without consideration, except as to the…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kepler v. KeplerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Altoona Second National Bank v. DunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Plunkett v. HamnettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912