Loucks v. Lightner
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 3, March T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug.. T., 1897, No. 14, on verdict for defendant. Opinion by Smith, J. Assumpsit. Before Stewart, J. It appears from the record that suit was brought by plaintiff as indorsee of a note made by Henry G. Lightner, the defendant, to the order of George Lightner.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 3, March T., 1899, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., Aug.. T., 1897, No. 14, on verdict for defendant. Opinion by Smith, J. Assumpsit. Before Stewart, J. It appears from the record that suit was brought by plaintiff as indorsee of a note made by Henry G. Lightner, the defendant, to the order of George Lightner. The note was as follows: “$800. York, Pa., April, 1893. “ One day after date I promise to pay to the order of George Lightner the sum of eight hundred dollars for value received,— without defalcation value received. “ (Signed) H. G. Lightner.” And indorsed “…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The plaintiff sues as indorsee of a note made by Henry G. Lightner, the defendant, to the order of George Lightner. The defense is that the note was given without consideration, for the accommodation of the payee, and was received by the indorsee after maturity, with notice of this. The plaintiff denies that such notice was given. This, however, is immaterial, since he admits that the note was long overdue when he took it. Notice of matters of defense between the original parties is material only in the case of a note indorsed over before maturity ; after maturity, the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Spotts v. SpottsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hess v. GowerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939