Morgan v. Wolstencroft
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 6, Nov. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T. 1894, No. 56. Assumpsit to recover $307.75 with interest upon two promissory notes against the defendant as endorser. Verdict for plaintiff for $342.15. The defendant alleged that he was dis charged by reason of no notice of nonpayment having been given, and that no language was ever used by him afterward that would make him liable.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 6, Nov. T., 1895, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T. 1894, No. 56. Assumpsit to recover $307.75 with interest upon two promissory notes against the defendant as endorser. Verdict for plaintiff for $342.15. The defendant alleged that he was dis charged by reason of no notice of nonpayment having been given, and that no language was ever used by him afterward that would make him liable. It was admitted that there was no legal notice of nonpayment, but claimed that certain general language used by appellant afterward .created a liability on his part to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is a well settled principle in the law of commercial, paper, that, where no demand has been made or notice given, an endorser’s promise to pay after maturity, with full knowledge of the holder’s laches is binding. The cases will be found collected in Oxnard v. Varnum, 111 Pa. 193, and need not be cited here. The appellant’s counsel does not dispute the principle, but contends that there was not such evidence of a promise to pay the $250 note as was necessary to bring the case within it. Conceding for present purposes that the question is governed *15by the rule…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Oxnard v. VarnumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886