Lancaster County National Bank v. Huver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county : Of January Term 1886, No. 136. Assumpsit by Michael L. Huver, assignee of Henry Shenk and wife, against Lancaster County National Bank. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment with leave.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county : Of January Term 1886, No. 136. Assumpsit by Michael L. Huver, assignee of Henry Shenk and wife, against Lancaster County National Bank. Pleas, non assumpsit, payment with leave. The following are the facts of the case as they appeared before the court, Patterson, J. On March 30th, 1885, Henry H. Shenk made his note for $250 payable thirty days after date, and on same date had it discounted by the Lancaster County National Bank; the proceeds, $248.58, were placed to his credit on the books of the bank and no check was drawn against that…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Paxson
This case is ruled by Dougherty v. The Bank, 93 Penn. St., 227. The facts of that case are upon all fours with this. There is no substantial difference between them. It is true, in the case in hand, there was an assignment for the benefit of creditors after the discount and 'before the withdrawal of the credit. But the assignee has no higher standing than his assignor. Hada check been drawn against the fund produced by the discount, prior to the withdrawal of the credit such check would have been good in the hands of k bona fide holder for value. But there was nothing of the kind here. The…
2Cited by5 opinions
- McNight v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Union National Bank v. WinsorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Alabama Grocery Co. v. 1st National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
- Lipsmeier v. VehslageU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1886
- McCloskey v. North Penn BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921