Noel v. Karper

Decision Date25 June 1866
PartiesNoel <I>versus</I> Karper.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

The charge of the court states the law with great clearness and precision, and no exception is taken to any part except to the answer to the defendant's 5th point, and we think the answer itself was perfectly proper, for it submitted to the jury whether the defendant understood the contents of the notes which he signed and upon which this suit was brought.

We also think there was no error in rejecting the testimony which forms the 1st and 2d specifications of error, as it was clearly irrelevant.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Curtis v. Kirkpatrick
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 16 Febrero 1904
    ......457;. Parker v. Marco (C. C.), 76 F. 510; Worthington. v. Worthington (Md.App.), 20 A. 911; Van Wyck v. Brasher, 81 N.Y. 260; Noel v. Karper, 53 Pa. 97; Ritter's Appeal, 59 Pa. 9; Conant v. Jackson, 16 Vt. 335.) A belief in spiritual. manifestations and in having had ......
  • Mulholland v. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 14 Noviembre 1961
    ...Pennsylvania court held that, since the Florida decree had never been vacated, the Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction.8 Cf.: Noel v. Karper, 53 Pa. 97 (action on notes signed two years prior to finding of inquisition that one of co-signers was a lunatic); Mulholland et al. v. Sterling M......
  • Mulholland v. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 14 Noviembre 1961
    ...Pennsylvania court held that, since the Florida decree had never been vacated, the Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction. [8] Cf.: Noel v. Karper, 53 Pa. 97 (action notes signed two years prior to finding of inquisition that one of co-signers was a lunatic); Mulholland et al. v. Sterling M......
  • Mulholland v. Sterling Motor Truck Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 3 Enero 1933
    ...facie evidence of insanity, and cast upon defendant the burden of establishing the other party's competency to contract. Noel v. Karper, 53 Pa. 97. A finding of lunacy, however, is not conclusive, and may be rebutted. Hutchinson v. Sandt, 4 Rawle 234, 238, 26 Am. Dec. 127; Moore v. Hershey,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT