Miller v. Consolidation Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit by The Consolidation Bank against August C. Miller and John P. Persch, late partners trading as Miller & Persch. The plaintiff declared .on a promissory no.te for $6500, dated Philadelphia, August 29th 1863, at two months, signed Miller & Persch, payable to their own order. Endorsed, Miller & Persch, and Persch & Steeb.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit by The Consolidation Bank against August C. Miller and John P. Persch, late partners trading as Miller & Persch. The plaintiff declared .on a promissory no.te for $6500, dated Philadelphia, August 29th 1863, at two months, signed Miller & Persch, payable to their own order. Endorsed, Miller & Persch, and Persch & Steeb. To this the defendant Miller filed an affidavit of defence, in which he averred that neither he nor the said firm of Miller & Persch received any value for or on account of the note of which a copy is…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Agnew, J.
— The note in this case is to be received as if drawn by Miller & Persch, payable to Persch & Steeb, and endorsed by the latter to the bank. The affidavit of defence upon which the question arises does not allege that the bank discounted the note under any unusual circumstances, or with any notice of the alleged fraudulent use of the name of Miller & Persch for the individual benefit of each. The only fact to show want of good faith is, that the note and endorsement are in the handwriting of Persch, which was known to the bank.
One who is a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re Troy & Cohoes Shirt Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1905
- Brown v. PettitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896