Bolton v. King
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1883, No. 38. This action was originally begun in foreign attachment, by Mary King against Thomas Bolton, Heuiy Bolton and John Bolton, trading or late trading as The Bronx Company. Upon the entering of security the attachment was dissolved and the suit proceeded in -assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas No 1, of Philadelphia county: Of July Term, 1883, No. 38. This action was originally begun in foreign attachment, by Mary King against Thomas Bolton, Heuiy Bolton and John Bolton, trading or late trading as The Bronx Company. Upon the entering of security the attachment was dissolved and the suit proceeded in -assumpsit. The narr. as originally filed, claimed to recover against the above named defendants the sum of $400, with interest from July 3, 1877, upon the following note:— $400. New York, July 3, 1872. On demand after date we promise to pay to the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Clark
This action was originally a foreign attachment, brought by Mary King against Thomas Bolton, Henry Bolton and ’John Bolton, trading órlate trading as “The Bronx Company;” the attachment being dissolved, however, the action proceeded in assumpsit. The plaintiff’s claim was upon a note of The Bronx Company, dated July 3d, 1872, for four hundred dollars, payable to the order of the plaintiff below, on demand,for value received. Upon the note was endorsed a payment, dated September 9th, 1879, of $28, interest to 3d July, 1877. This’suit was.brought 13th December, 1881. The defendants interposed…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Trainor v. Phila. & R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Sundling v. WilleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Culbertson Et Ux. v. AnsellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Kravitz v. PovlotskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- McDermott v. SulkinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.