Hughes v. Large
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Bucks county. Dec. 26. — Hughes brought assumpsit on a note, dated August 28,1837, at thirty days. On the 12th December, 1837, it was endorsed specially, and by successive special endorsements came to'plaintiff. Under plea of set-off, defendant showed plaintiff’s note of September 21, 1837, at one day from date, endorsed in blank, and proved that some time in 1838 he was the holder. The evidence was admitted, and raises the question in the cause.
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
— It is certain the profession formerly thought that the endorsee of a promissory note tookit, subject not only to equities *104arising out of the original transaction, but to demands collateral to it. For proof of this, we need go no further back than to Cromwell v. Arrott, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 180, in which it was said by Chief Justice Tilghman, and Mr. Justice Yeates, that before the act of 1797, it was considered that the endorsee held it subject, as well to set-off as to every other legal or equitable defence that could be made against the payee. Indeed, the framers of the statute took it for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cromwell v. ArrottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Metzgar ex rel. Uhler v. MetzgarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
3Cited by4 opinions
- MANUFACTURERS'FINANCE CORPORATION v. Vye-Neill Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1933
- Brunt v. PotterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Litcher v. North City Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Newbold v. BoonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898