Neyens v. Port
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 71, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Huntingdon Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 27, on verdict for plaintiff in case of L. M. Neyens v. L. E. Port. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Woods, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $156. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The alleged right of the plaintiff to recover was based upon a written instrument, signed by the defendant, in the words and figures following:
*430
This paper was, on May 18,1906, indorsed by the Acme Food Company and delivered to L. M. Neyens, the plaintiff, who paid value for the same. The court below, upon the trial, held that this paper was a negotiable promissory note, excluded evidence offered by the defendant which might have constituted a good defense had the action been brought by the Acme Food Company, and gave binding instructions in favor of the plaintiff. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Costelo v. CrowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Citizens N. Bank v. PiolletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Ernst & Godshalk v. SteckmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873
- Post v. Kinzua Hemlock Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Gazlay v. RiegelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.