Craig v. Sibbett & Jones
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action by Sibbett & Jones, exchange brokers of Pittsburgh, against Craig, Bellas & Co., of Philadelphia, on a bill of exchange, drawn by Samuel Barnum, on Craig, Bellas & Co., and accepted by the latter, as follows $900. Pittsburgh, 20th May, 1844. Sixty days after date, for value received, pay to the order of the drawer, the sum of nine hundred dollars, and charge the same as advised, to account of Your obedient…
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action by Sibbett & Jones, exchange brokers of Pittsburgh, against Craig, Bellas & Co., of Philadelphia, on a bill of exchange, drawn by Samuel Barnum, on Craig, Bellas & Co., and accepted by the latter, as follows $900. Pittsburgh, 20th May, 1844. Sixty days after date, for value received, pay to the order of the drawer, the sum of nine hundred dollars, and charge the same as advised, to account of Your obedient servant, Samuel Barnum. Messrs. Craig, Bellas & Co., Philadelphia. Payable at Philadelphia Bank. Accepted. Craig, Bellas & Co.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
There is no plausible pretext for refusing to pay this hill; for it is not pretended that the plaintiffs below, who discounted it in the regular course of their business, did any act which was not consistent with perfect good faith. They knew it was drawn against flour supposed to have been shipped in a regular course of dealing between the drawer and the acceptors; but they had discounted other bills between the parties, which were paid at maturity; and if they had not, they would have had no reason to *241suspect that a fraud was meditated…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Green v. WilkieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Detroit Savings Bank v. TowersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Ravenswood Bank v. RenekerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901