Legal Opinion

Fehr v. Campbell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 24, 1927No. Appeal, 62PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Moschzisker,

Plaintiff Fehr, claiming to be a holder in due course, sued on a $10,000 promissory note, made by defendant Campbell to his own order and endorsed by him to the Franklin Operating Company, from whom Fehr acquired it for a valuable consideration; judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiff and defendant has appealed.

At trial, it developed that defendant had previously sued plaintiff and others, in equity, claiming that he had been defrauded into giving the paper in question. The record of the equity suit was placed in evidence in the present action…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Ward v. City Trust Co. of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Second National Bank v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  3. Kenyon Realty Co. v. National Deposit BankCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
  4. Howard National Bank v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
  5. Putnam v. Ensign Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. First National Bank of Blairstown v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Girard Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Pennsylvania Co. for Ins. v. Ninth Bk. T. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Milam v. Cooper Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1953
  5. Gordon v. Hartford Sterling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API