Holohan v. Mix
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPEND ANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP CAMERON COUNTY. Suit was brought in the name of the payee of an unindorsed note, to recover against the maker, for the use of the administrator of a decedent among whose papers it was found on his death, with writs of scire facias sur judgments against the payee on which the decedent had become bail for stay of execution, and which had been paid by decedent.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPEND ANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP CAMERON COUNTY. Suit was brought in the name of the payee of an unindorsed note, to recover against the maker, for the use of the administrator of a decedent among whose papers it was found on his death, with writs of scire facias sur judgments against the payee on which the decedent had become bail for stay of execution, and which had been paid by decedent. The payee testified that he had not transferred the note to the decedent, but had left it with him to have it discounted in bank. The facts having been fairly submitted to the jury,…
1Per curiam
The first assignment does not conform to the Rules of Court, and will not be considered. The second, alleges error in the charge of the court. We think the charge was in entire accord with the manner in which the case was tried below. It was fairly left to the jury to find whether the note in controversy came into the hands of the administrator of A. C. Noyes, under the circumstances claimed by him, or whether it had been given to Noyes by Holohan for tire purpose of discount. The jury were distinctly told that if so given, there could be no recovery. It is also proper to say that no question…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Moore v. PhillipsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898