Mitchell v. Welch
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe District Court, Philadelphia. Elisha N. Welch v. Matthew Pope Mitchell and Benjamin N. Wynkoop. Harr. in assumpsit. In the first count it was averred that Mullen & Mitchell drew a bill of exchange on Mitchell & Wynkoop, defendants, dated September 16, 1846, by which they requested defendants, ninety days after date, “ to pay to Messrs. Holmes Hubbard,” $270.30, which defendants accepted.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court, Philadelphia. Elisha N. Welch v. Matthew Pope Mitchell and Benjamin N. Wynkoop. Harr. in assumpsit. In the first count it was averred that Mullen & Mitchell drew a bill of exchange on Mitchell & Wynkoop, defendants, dated September 16, 1846, by which they requested defendants, ninety days after date, “ to pay to Messrs. Holmes Hubbard,” $270.30, which defendants accepted. That said Holmes & Hubbard, uto whom or to whose order” payment of said money, in said bill specified, was requested or directed to be made, endorsed it to plaintiff. The narr. also contained…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Coulter, J.
The averment in the declaration that said Holmes & Hubbard, to whom or to whose order payment of said money in said bill specified was directed or requested to be made, endorsed it to plaintiff, is a substantial averment that the bill was payable to their order. The whole sentence must be taken together, and the words, “ endorsed it to plaintiff,” immediately following the words, “ to whom or to whose order the bill was directed to be made,” afford an irresistilbe implication that the bill was payable to Holmes & Hubbard, or their order. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burk v. HuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by4 opinions
- Second Nat. Bank of Titusville v. CaldwellDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1882
- Aetna Insurance v. Ginter, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County1974
- Hottenstein's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Lehigh County · 1924
- Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904