Maples v. Hicks
Philadelphia Court of Nisi Prius
This was an action by the endorsee of a bill of exchange for $553 82, at three months, dated March 8th, 1842, against the drawer. The bill was regularly presented at maturity, and protested for non-payment, and notice given to the drawer and endorser.
Read the full summary
This was an action by the endorsee of a bill of exchange for $553 82, at three months, dated March 8th, 1842, against the drawer. The bill was regularly presented at maturity, and protested for non-payment, and notice given to the drawer and endorser. On the 13th July, 1843, the defendant filed, in the prothonotary’s office, a paper endorsed “ affidavit of defence,” of which the following is a copy: The said John Hicks, being duly sworn, saith, that he hath a defence to the whole cause of action filed in this case, of the nature and character following, to wit: 1. That he, the defendant, had…
1Opinion of the Court
The jury were charged as follows, by
Huston, J.
— If a new note or bill is given by the same parties, no one being off who was on the old — the securities being of equal effect, the latter may not be an extinguishment of the former, and the holder may sue on either when the last has become due: — but if on the latter note or bill the name of the endorser is left off, and the new bill, payable at a future day, is accepted, without the knowledge, and, especially, if against the consent, of some third person, as endorser, it is giving time to the maker or acceptor, and discharges him whose name is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Beebe v. West Branch BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844