Bank v. Porter
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Washington county. This was a suit by the Monongahela Bank of Brownsville against Andrew Porter and William Griffith, who were indorsers of a note of James Tomlinson. In order to charge the defendants, it was necessary to prove a protest; and for that purpose, one made by Israel Miller, a notary public, was offered in evidence ; and objected to, on the ground that Mr Miller was a stockholder in the bank. The court overruled the objection and received the evidence.
1Per curiam
In Stewart v. Alleson, 6 Serg. & Rawle 324, it was held that a protest is competent by force of the act of assembly, though the notary, being called, proved that he had the facts certified by him, from hearsay. That was going pretty far. But to hold this protest competent would go much further. The protest of a notary is his deposition to the truth of the facts contained in it; and his position in the cause is that of a witness deposing under the sanction of an official oath to which no temporal penalty is annexed; and can it be supposed that the legislature intended to make him competent,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stewart v. AllisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821
3Cited by5 opinions
- Nelson v. First Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Kothe v. Krag-Reynolds Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Commonwealth v. PyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Crozer v. LelandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Herkimer County Bank v. CoxNew York Supreme Court · 1839