Custer v. Tompkins County Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of-. Debt on a promissory note drawn by defendant and endorsed by Custer, Detriek and Reed. The defendant offered to show that the note was made to be discounted for a special purpose, and that before it was discounted, Reed had notice not to use the .note, and that no consideration had been given for it, and that when discounted by plaintiffs, Reed, who was a director of the bank (plaintiffs), was present.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of-. Debt on a promissory note drawn by defendant and endorsed by Custer, Detriek and Reed. The defendant offered to show that the note was made to be discounted for a special purpose, and that before it was discounted, Reed had notice not to use the .note, and that no consideration had been given for it, and that when discounted by plaintiffs, Reed, who was a director of the bank (plaintiffs), was present. The rejection of this evidence was assigned for error.
1Per curiam
This cause is ruled by The Bank of Pittsburgh v. Whitehead. The rule laid down there, is, that notice to a corporator is not notice to the corporation, unless he were constituted an organ of communication between it and those who deal with it. The corporator, in this case, was not such an organ, and the evidence was properly rejected.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Joseph A. Puleo & Sons, Inc. v. Borough CouncilCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973