Frevall v. Fitch
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Otf the return of a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, it appeared that Peter E. Frevall brought an action upon the case, in that Court, against Thomas Fitch. The declaration contained two counts.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Otf the return of a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, it appeared that Peter E. Frevall brought an action upon the case, in that Court, against Thomas Fitch. The declaration contained two counts. In the first, the plaintiff declared that, “whereas, heretofore, to wit, on the 16th day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three, at New Brunswick, in New Jersey, to wit, at the city aforesaid, the president and directors of the bank of New Brunswick, made their certain promissory note in writing under the common seal of the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
It is clear that recourse to the defendant, cannot be had on his endorsement. Bearing the corporate seal of the bank on its face, though framed in other respects as a promissory note, the instrument is a specialty; and no obligation arose from the endorsement of it either by the statute or the custom of merchants. But under the circumstances of the transfer, may not the money paid for it be recovered back on the money counts'!
The defendant must abide by the representation of the broker who represented him. The note, as it is called, with…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Patterson v. PoindexterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Fink v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Mason v. FrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Riddle v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Hopkins v. RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.