Emerick v. Kroh

14 Pa. 315
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 15, 1850·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per curiam.

— There is no substantial variance. Though the cause of action is called in the statement a promissory note, it is also called a due bill, which in the parlance of the country means a sealed acknowledgment of debt and a promise to pay it. On a demurrer to evidence, we will not look very critically into such exceptions.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Emerick v. Kroh, 14 Pa. 315 (Pa. 1850).

14 Pa. 315 (Emerick v. Kroh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vernon D. Cox & Co., Inc. v. Giles
406 A.2d 1107 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)