Smith v. Fisher
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas, Philadelphia. Daniel Fisher, the holder of a promissory note, brought suit against John Smith, before a justice,of the peace, on a promissory note, as follows:— Philadelphia, Sept. 6, 1852. Four months after date, I promise to pay to the order of John Smith, forty-three dollars and twenty cents, value received. (Signed) StepmbN McGowan. (Endorsed) John Smith, ' Daniel Fisher.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas, Philadelphia. Daniel Fisher, the holder of a promissory note, brought suit against John Smith, before a justice,of the peace, on a promissory note, as follows:— Philadelphia, Sept. 6, 1852. Four months after date, I promise to pay to the order of John Smith, forty-three dollars and twenty cents, value received. (Signed) StepmbN McGowan. (Endorsed) John Smith, ' Daniel Fisher. On the trial a notary testified that he received the note in suit from the Northern Liberty Bank for protest. That his custom, when the residence of the drawer and endorser were not upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered, March 12, 1855, by
Knox, J.
This was an action against the endorser of a promissory note, dated at Philadelphia, without any particular place of payment being specified. No demand was made upon the maker, and no notice of non-payment was given to the endorser, but the Court below instructed the jury that the plaintiff was excused from making the demand and giving the notice, because, -after due diligence, their residences could not be ascertained.
Whether or not due diligence was used is the question upon which the case turns, and, as there is no dispute…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marwitz's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Hazlett v. BragdonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898