McConnell v. Apollo Savings Bank

Citations

• 146 Pa. 79
• 23 A. 347
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1198

Syllabus

<p>(a) Plaintiff brought suit against “the Apollo Savings Bank, an incorporation,” etc. On the trial, an amendment was allowed striking out the words “ an incorporation,” etc. An offer of the testimony of the plaintiff as a witness in Ms own behalf was refused, and the refusal assigned for error, after judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the defendant.</p> <p>1. There was notMng upon which the ruling could be intelligently reviewed. Moreover, after the amendment, the case stood against the “Apollo Savings Bank” alone, with nothing to show the character of the association, or the names of the parties composing it. If a partnership, there was no defendant. A judgment for the plaintiff, therefore, would be fruitless.</p>