Maffet & Rhoads v. Leuckel
93 Pa. 468, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 173
Opinion
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered March 22d 1880,
There was nothing in the form of the note produced in evidence to preclude the plaintiff from showing that it was given for a partnership debt — that it was not accepted in satisfaction, but merely as collateral security. It matters not that the making of the note was cotemporaneous with the partnership debt. On the facts found by the referee, we are of opinion that the judgment was right.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Maffet & Rhoads v. Leuckel, 93 Pa. 468, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 173 (Pa. 1880).
93 Pa. 468 (Maffet & Rhoads v. Leuckel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Aarons v. Stone
39 Pa. D. & C. 27 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1940)
Smith v. Stock Yards Loan Co.
1939 OK 300 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Amunategui v. Spokane Cattle Loan Co.
214 P. 211 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)
Rhodes v. Terheyden
116 A. 364 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Estate of the Van Haagen Soap Co.
21 A. 598 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1891)