Resh v. First National Bank

93 Pa. 397, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 161
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 4, 1880·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Paxson

delivered the opinion of the court, May 3d 1880.

While this case differs somewhat in its facts from Ziegler v. The Bank, and Steckel v. The Bank, just decided, it is similar in principle, and comes within the rulings of those cases.

The third assignment covers all that it is necessary to discuss. The court rejected evidence offered to prove that the note in suit was procured from defendant below, by fraud on the part of the bank officers; that he -went to the bank to receive payment of a certificate of deposit for $500; that when the money was paid, he signed a paper represented by the bank officers to be a receipt for $500, but which afterwards turned out to be a note for $500, upon which this suit was brought.

It is true the plaintiff denies the facts upon which this offer was [400]*400based. But this denial goes for nothing, as the jury were not allowed to pass upon them.

The evidence should have been admitted. Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded.

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

Resh v. First National Bank, 93 Pa. 397, 1880 Pa. LEXIS 161 (Pa. 1880).

93 Pa. 397 (Resh v. First National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reading Trust Co. v. Hutchison
35 Pa. D. & C.2d 790 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1964)
Equitable Discount Corp. v. Fischer
12 Pa. D. & C.2d 326 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1957)
Massey v. Bohn
4 Pa. D. & C. 653 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Togni v. Taminelli
103 P. 899 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)