Dunn v. Tisch
Dunn v. Tisch
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs rested after offering in evidence the written instrument upon which they brought their action. It was in the following form: “Allentown, Pa.,
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Dunn, Executors v. Tisch
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negotiable instruments■ — Promissory notes — Insufficient evidence —Nonsuit. In an action on an instrument reading “Deceived of (plaintiff’s decedent) 47 shares of Lehigh Bleaching and Dyeing stock, par value $100 per share, -which I .agree to return or pay for the sum of four thousand dollars on or before the 27th of April, 1914. Less the reduction of note which I hold,” where plaintiff offered the note in evidence and rested, the trial judge properly entered a compulsory nonsuit, as it was clear that there was no indebtedness of $4,000 owing from the defendant to the plaintiff, no evidence having been produced by which the court could ascertain what would be a just verdict against the defendant.