Schollenberger v. Nehf
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county. This was an action of assumpsit by Benjamin Nehf against Gustavus G. Schollenberger, founded upon the alleged guaranty of the following note:— “Pottsville, Dec. 27, 1854. “ Thirty days after date I promise to pay, to the order of Benjamin Nehf, two hundred dollars, without defalcation, for value received. “ L. C. Leib. $200. Endorsed, “ G. G. Schollenberger, “ Benj. Nehe.”
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Schuylkill county. This was an action of assumpsit by Benjamin Nehf against Gustavus G. Schollenberger, founded upon the alleged guaranty of the following note:— “Pottsville, Dec. 27, 1854. “ Thirty days after date I promise to pay, to the order of Benjamin Nehf, two hundred dollars, without defalcation, for value received. “ L. C. Leib. $200. Endorsed, “ G. G. Schollenberger, “ Benj. Nehe.” The statement filed averred that “ the defendant, on the date of the note, by his endorsement and guaranty on the back of it, guarantied and contracted with the plaintiff to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Woodward, J.
If this ease rested solely upon the note, the presumption would be, that Sehollenberger endorsed it as second endorser, for the accommodation of the prior, parties, and to give *192it credit with the world. Of course no liability would attach to him so long as the note remained in the hands of the payee. But it is a note made out of the usual course of business, and is to be construed according to the contract and understanding of the parties -as exhibited in the evidence: 4 Watts 449. Referring ourselves to the evidence, we find that when Leib…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Sweeney v. GiroloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893