Rathfon v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Rathfon v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

165 F. 1007, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5437

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 9, 1908

DocketNo. 21

StatusPublished

This text of 165 F. 1007 (Rathfon v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rathfon v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 165 F. 1007, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5437 (circtedpa 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

After considering the plaintiff’s argument upon the motion for a new trial, I am still of opinion that the instructions given to the jury were correct and that the promissory notes referred to in the argument were clearly renewals of former obligations. No money passed at the time. The transactions were pure matters of bookkeeping, and merely carried along loans that had been made before the .bond in suit attached. The motion for a new trial is refused. It was understood at the argument that, if a new trial should be refused, the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict would not be insisted upon. It is therefore overruled; but, as the defendant is entitled to maintain the soundness of its position upon that motion (which may become important if my instructions to the jury should prove, on appeal, to be wrong), an exception is herewith sealed to the refusal of judgment.

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

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

After considering the plaintiff’s argument upon the motion for a new trial, I am still of opinion that the instructions given to the jury were correct and that the promissory notes referred to in the argument were clearly renewals of former obligations. No money passed at the time. The transactions were pure matters of bookkeeping, and merely carried along loans that had been made before the .bond in suit attached. The motion for a new trial is refused. It was understood at the argument that, if a new trial should be refused, the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict would not be insisted upon. It is therefore overruled; but, as the defendant is entitled to maintain the soundness of its position upon that motion (which may become important if my instructions to the jury should prove, on appeal, to be wrong), an exception is herewith sealed to the refusal of judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F. 1007, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rathfon-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-circtedpa-1908.