Ashby v. Butz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ashby v. Butz

101 A. 318, 257 Pa. 230, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 712

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 19, 1917

DocketAppeal, No. 346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A. 318 (Ashby v. Butz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashby v. Butz, 101 A. 318, 257 Pa. 230, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 712 (Pa. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The defénse of the appellant in this action, brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note which he executed and delivered to appellee’s decedent, is that the same was cancelled in pursuance of the terms of an agreement entered into by him and the decedent. Though, under the testimony, the agreement was to have been prepared and executed and the note cancelled in pursuance of it, it never was executed. There was merely an understanding between the parties that the agreement should be prepared and executed, but this was never carried out, and the absolute liability of appellee on his obligation had not been impaired at the time of. the death of Henry S. Keck. This was the correct view of the learned court below in directing the verdict for plaintiff, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

The defénse of the appellant in this action, brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note which he executed and delivered to appellee’s decedent, is that the same was cancelled in pursuance of the terms of an agreement entered into by him and the decedent. Though, under the testimony, the agreement was to have been prepared and executed and the note cancelled in pursuance of it, it never was executed. There was merely an understanding between the parties that the agreement should be prepared and executed, but this was never carried out, and the absolute liability of appellee on his obligation had not been impaired at the time of. the death of Henry S. Keck. This was the correct view of the learned court below in directing the verdict for plaintiff, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A. 318, 257 Pa. 230, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashby-v-butz-pa-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack