Housum v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Berlcs county. This was an action on the case brought to April Term 1858, by Charles H. Rogers, John B. Austin, and Adolph E. Borie, against Daniel Housum. The case was this: — On the 15th day of June 1857, Norton & Clymer drew a promissory note for the sum of $2630, payable throe months after date, to the order of Daniel Housum, at the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of Pennsylvania, at Reading.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Berlcs county. This was an action on the case brought to April Term 1858, by Charles H. Rogers, John B. Austin, and Adolph E. Borie, against Daniel Housum. The case was this: — On the 15th day of June 1857, Norton & Clymer drew a promissory note for the sum of $2630, payable throe months after date, to the order of Daniel Housum, at the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of Pennsylvania, at Reading. This note Daniel Housum endorsed, for the accommodation of the drawers, who had the same discounted for their own use at the said office. When this note fell…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Woodward, J.:The plaintiff in error, defendant below, was an accommodation endorser of a promissory note discounted by the Bank of Pennsylvania, at its office of discount and deposit at Reading. Had he a right to pay the note in the depreciated paper of the Bank of Pennsylvania to an assignee who had paid full value for it to the bank ? The court below said no, and we think they answered correctly.
The analogies furnished by the cases cited in the argument are sufficient to justify the ruling of the court, but a reason which is decisive against the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Board of Ed. v. CalvertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933