Smith v. Popular Loan & Building Ass'n
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1880, No. 45. Case by The Popular Loan and Building Association of the city of Philadelphia against Michael Smith, upon a promissory note drawn by George C. Shelmerdine to his own order and endorsed by defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1880, No. 45. Case by The Popular Loan and Building Association of the city of Philadelphia against Michael Smith, upon a promissory note drawn by George C. Shelmerdine to his own order and endorsed by defendant. The latter filed an affidavit of defence wherein he averred, “that the defendant, at the request and for the accommodation of Shelmerdine, the drawer of the promissory note upon which suit is brought, made, executed and delivered to the Fourteenth and Twentieth Wards Building and Loan Association of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Trunkey
The affidavit of defence sets forth facts which show that the defendant’s endorsement of the note in suit was induced by falsehood ; that he gave it on the assurance that the note would- be paid on a mortgage, for which he was already liable; and that the drawer and payee fraudulently gave the note to the plaintiff. The facts are clearly stated, and reveal actual fraud by the drawer in the obtaining and use of the endorsement. This case is ruled by Hutchinson v. Boggs & Kirk, 4 Casey 294, which establishes that an affidavit of defence, alleging such facts as show that the note was obtained…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Erie Boot & Shoe Co. v. EichenlaubSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Reeper v. GreevySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897