Colonial Trust Co. v. Getz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., May T., 1903, No. 66, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Colonial Trust Company of Reading v. H. K. Getz. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Before Endlich, J At the trial the following offer was made : Mr. Jones: Plaintiff offers in evidence note of Walter G. Roland, payable to the order of II.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 167, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., May T., 1903, No. 66, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Colonial Trust Company of Reading v. H. K. Getz. Assumpsit upon a promissory note. Before Endlich, J At the trial the following offer was made : Mr. Jones: Plaintiff offers in evidence note of Walter G. Roland, payable to the order of II. K. Getz, for $665, dated January 29, 1903, payable March 20, 1903, at the Colonial Trust Company, indorsed by H. K. Getz crediting the drawer. (Note marked “ Exhibit A, H. L. C., 10-20-03.”) Mr. Derr: This note is objected…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is well settled in Pennsylvania that when a promissory note “clearly shows upon its face ’’'that it has been altered in some material part, such as its date or the time or place of payment, it is incumbent on the party producing it and claiming under it to remove the suspicion thus raised as to the genuineness of the instrument by accounting for the alteration. In such a case the note should not be admitted in evidence, except in connection with evidence tending to explain the alteration. Heffner v. Wenrich, 32 Pa. 423; Hill v. Cooley, 46 Pa. 259; Hartley v. Corboy,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Reel v. ElderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Lonzer v. Lehigh Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Gibson v. Western New York & Pennsylvania R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
- Holland v. KindreganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Cromley v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Short v. Allegheny Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Commonwealth v. KleinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Hygienic Fleeced Underwear Co. v. WaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Kindell v. Franklin Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Armstrong v. DescalziSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.