Horrell v. Reeves
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Horrell v. Reeves, 72 Pa. Super. 129 (1919)
1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 266
Head, Henderson, Keller, Oklady, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Horrell v. Reeves
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The only assignment of error presented for our consideration is, that the court erred in overruling a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto on a verdict found in favor of the defendants.
The charge of the court and the opinion filed in refusing the defendants’ motion furnish a conclusive answer to the argument presented by the appellant. On the trial the plaintiff presented a point asking for binding instructions in his favor, which was refused and the disputed questions of fact were fairly submitted in an adequate charge. The verdict returned was fully warranted by the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Horrell v. Reeves and Nelson
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Promissory notes — Endorser—Fraud—Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 19k — Question for jury. In an action by an endorsee against the makers of a promissory note, where the defendants show that the note was procured from them by fraud, the burden is upon the endorsee to show affirmatively that he was an innocent purchaser for value without knowledge of the fraud. If, assuming such burden, the plaintiff testifies that he received the note in payment of a preexisting debt, the case must go to the jury to permit it to pass upon the credibility of the witness. When the establishment of a question of fact depends upon oral testimony, the credibility of the witness is for the jury alone, and it is its exclusive province to determine whether from such testimony the fact in dispute has been established.