Barton v. Fetherolf
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county. This was an action of debt, brought November 6th 1857, by Daniel L. Fetherolf against Isaac Barton, to recover the amount alleged to be due upon a promissory note, signed and delivered by the defendant, to the order of Fetherolf, Montgomery & Co., and endorsed in blank by the latter. To a declaration setting forth the note in form, the defendant pleaded nil debet, to which was added the plea of payment with leave, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county. This was an action of debt, brought November 6th 1857, by Daniel L. Fetherolf against Isaac Barton, to recover the amount alleged to be due upon a promissory note, signed and delivered by the defendant, to the order of Fetherolf, Montgomery & Co., and endorsed in blank by the latter. To a declaration setting forth the note in form, the defendant pleaded nil debet, to which was added the plea of payment with leave, &c. On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence a promissory note, dated May 1st 1857, Isaac Barton to Fetherolf, Montgomery & Co., at 60…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Thompson, J.
The able argument on part of the defendant in error, placed the ruling of the court respecting the testimony of an endorse/, on the true ground. It was, in fact, an offer to show matters of defence, existing anterior to and at the time of negotiating the note. For instance, that it had been negotiated after it had been paid and taken up by the party bound to see to its payment, and for whose accommodation it was drawn; that the negotiation was after maturity, and without the knowledge of the endorser. The endorse/, on the authority of all…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- White v. KiblingNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Parke v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842