Lehman v. Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lebanon county. A. J. Jones and J. Cameron & Co., against John Lehman and William Stroh. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the plaintiff filed the following statement.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lebanon county. A. J. Jones and J. Cameron & Co., against John Lehman and William Stroh. This was an action of assumpsit, in which the plaintiff filed the following statement. The plaintiffs, by their attorney, Jacob B. Weidman, state, that the above suit is brought to recover the sum of three hundred and five dollars and sixty-two cents, which they the said plaintiffs paid as endorsers of said John Lehman, Jun., and William Stroh, on a note drawn by K. Robinson, and discounted by the Harrisburg Savings Institution. That said note was drawn by K. Robinson on the…
1Per curiam
The rule in Lambert v. Oakes (1 Lord Raym. 443) is, that the holder must have demanded, or done his endeavour to demand the money. But the law is not so unreasonable as to require an impossibility: and therefore it is said (id Anon. 743) that where the drawee of a bill has absconded before the day of payment, notice of the fact is equivalent to notice of demand and dishonour. In Duncan v. M’Cullough (4 Serg. & Rawle 480) the principle was recognised as being applicable to a promissory note; and it has been established by direct decision in some of our neighbouring states. It would have been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Duncan v. M'CulloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
3Cited by5 opinions
- Taylor v. SnyderNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Ratcliff v. Planters' BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1854
- Baumgardner v. ReevesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1860
- Foster v. . JulienNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Ratcliff v. Planters' BankTennessee Supreme Court · 1854