Dennistoun v. Fleming
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. April 24. The first count of the1 declaration in this case was against defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange. The second count was against defendants as acceptors of a bill drawn by Crosby on defendants under a written authority, and averring that the bill was taken by plaintiffs on the sight of such authority, and relying thereon.
Read the full summary
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. April 24. The first count of the1 declaration in this case was against defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange. The second count was against defendants as acceptors of a bill drawn by Crosby on defendants under a written authority, and averring that the bill was taken by plaintiffs on the sight of such authority, and relying thereon. The bill was dated Feb. 12, 1840. On the trial, plaintiffs read two letters from defendants to Crosby — one Nov. 21, 1839, announcing they had credited him on account of certain shipments made; the other dated Jan. 21, 1840,…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
The drawer of a bill of exchange is not a competent witness for the endorser, in an action against the acceptor, because of his liability to damages, interest, and costs, if the party calling him should not prevail; Scott v. McLellan, 2 Greenl. 199. The same point is ruled in Smith v. Thorne, 9 Watts, 144, on the authority of the Bank of Montgomery v. Walker, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 229; Hubbly v. Browne, 16 Johns. 70. In Smith v. Thorne, it is decided, that in an action by the holder against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, the drawer is not a competent witness to prove that the bill was drawn…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hubbly v. Brown & Nichols.New York Supreme Court · 1819
- Bank of Montgomery County v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Smith v. ThorneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839