¶1There were actually two seals on the face of each note — the one made by a printed stamp, and the other by an exterior circumflex of a pen. But even if that were not so, there was intrinsic evidence that Bowman had adopted the seal as it stood upon the paper, and the jury might possibly have disregarded the extrinsic evidence, had the two been incompatible. Let the judgment be affirmed for the reasons given in the charge.
6 Pa. 302
Bowman v. Robb
Decided July 15, 1847
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1847-07-15
In error from the Common Pleas of Lycoming county. July 26. This was an action of debt on two written contracts, The defendant pleaded non est factum, non assumpsit, statute of limitations and payment, &e. The case was tried at a special court, held by Woodward, P. J., at Williamsport. At the trial, the plaintiff called George F. Boal to prove the signatures of the parties to the obligation on which the action was founded.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1847-07-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1972
2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →