Emerick v. Kroh
14 Pa. 315
This text of 14 Pa. 315 (Emerick v. Kroh) 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
Emerick v. Kroh, 14 Pa. 315 (Pa. 1850).
Opinion
— 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
Related
Vernon D. Cox & Co., Inc. v. Giles
406 A.2d 1107 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
14 Pa. 315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerick-v-kroh-pa-1850.