Groth v. Gyger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was an action of assumpsit by John Gyger & Co., bankers, against Philip Groth, as endorser of a promissory note for $115, made by Valentine Risse, dated at Lancaster, the 29th September 1856, and payable six months after date, to the order of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Lancaster county. This was an action of assumpsit by John Gyger & Co., bankers, against Philip Groth, as endorser of a promissory note for $115, made by Valentine Risse, dated at Lancaster, the 29th September 1856, and payable six months after date, to the order of the defendant. On the 16th October 1856, Valentine Risse, the maker, died, having by his will constituted the defendant and another his executors, to whom letters testamentary were granted on the 28th October 1856. The note in question was, at maturity, presented for payment at the banking house of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lowrie, C. J.
The principle upon which the case of the Juniata *273Bank v. Hale, 16 S. & R. 157, was decided, is conclusive in favour of the defendant below in this case, and we discover no sufficient reason for rejecting it. That case might have been decided upon its special circumstances, but it was not. It follows the rule that requires that payment of a note shall be demanded of the maker at maturity, and that notice of its dishonour shall be immediately given to the endorser, and refuses to make an exception in a case where, during the currency of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kramer v. SandfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by3 opinions
- Marwitz's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Deacon v. SmaltzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Ward v. Carlis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1937