Carnegie National Bank v. Seibel

100 A. 279, 255 Pa. 473, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 477
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 8, 1917·No. Appeal, No. 24·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Whether Daniel Bowman signed the note involved in this controversy for the accommodation of Louis Seibel, the joint maker, was a pure question of fact, which was referred to a jury. Their finding was that he was but an accommodation maker, and, having paid the judgment entered upon the note, he is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the holder against the man he accommodated with his signature. The facts are concisely stated in the opinion of the learned court below granting relief to the appellee, and, on it, this appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

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

Carnegie National Bank v. Seibel, 100 A. 279, 255 Pa. 473, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 477 (Pa. 1917).

100 A. 279 (Carnegie National Bank v. Seibel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kennedy v. Rothrock Co.
104 A. 746 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)