Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

178 Pa. 273

Lett v. Kunkle

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 9, 1896

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1896-11-09

Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Co , November Term, 1893, No. 559, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Before Rayburn, P. J., of the 33d judicial district, especially presiding. The note in suit was as follows: [seal] “ ¿6405 “I promise to pay to John Lett on demand the sum of four hundred and five pounds sterling, for value received at five per cent. “Kunkle & Wilson. “ Sept. 5,1890.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1900

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1896-11-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Ctjbiam,

¶1We find nothing in the testimony that would have warranted the learned trial judge in submitting this case to the jury. He was therefore right in directing them to find in favor of the plaintiff, and in charging them in the language of plaintiff’s fourth point, that “ the note is the final contract of the parties in writing, and there being no competent evidence to go to the jury to impeach the note, the verdict should be for the plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest.” It follows that there was no error in refusing to affirm defendants’ points recited in the third to ninth specifications inclusive. There is nothing in the record that requires further notice. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/178/pa/273 · .json · Public domain