Legal Opinion

Lycoming Trust Co. v. Smithgall

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 1939No. Appeal, 52PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaffer,

This is an action by the holder of a promissory note for $2,378.17 against the endorser, who was also payee. The endorsement was not in the ordinary form, but appeared on the back of the note thus: “For value received . . . hereby waive presentment, demand for payment and notice of dishonor of the within note, assign the same to Lycoming Trust Company and guarantee the payment thereof at maturity.” On the trial the jury rendered a verdict for defendant. Subsequently, the court entered judgment for plaintiff non obstante veredicto.

The defense was that the note…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gianni v. Russell Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Speier v. MichelsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. Bank of Hooversville v. SagersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. First National Bank v. BaerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Constructors' Assn. of W. Pa. v. FurmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Frederick EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  3. Colonial Manufacturing Co. v. CarideoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  4. Western Savings & Deposit Bank v. SauerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API