Reeper v. Greevy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 54, March T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1896, No. 195, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note. Before McClure, P. J., of the 17th judicial district specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 54, March T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Blair Co., Oct. T., 1896, No. 195, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on promissory note. Before McClure, P. J., of the 17th judicial district specially presiding. It appeared from the evidence that Martin Grube, an employer of plaintiff, obtained from defendant under alleged fraudulent circumstances a promissory note made by The Wopsononock Resort and Improvement Company (who were indebted to plaintiff), indorsed by defendant.' Subsequently Grube gave the note to the plaintiff, as it was alleged without notice and before…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Reeder, J.,
After the defendant had introduced proof that the note in suit was obtained by Mr. Grube from him fraudulently, the burden was shifted upon the plaintiff to show that he had obtained the note without notice of the fraud for a valuable consideration. ' That this is the well-settled law of Pennsylvania, there can be no question.
“ Where a negotiable note was obtained from the maker under false pretense, and fraudulently put in circulation by the payee, the holder of the note, in order to recover, must show a purchase for value before maturity, without notice of the fraud: ”…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Holme v. KarsperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Lerch Hardware Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Smith v. Popular Loan & Building Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880