Kline v. Keiser
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 61£. Assumpsit by Hertz Keiser against Max Kline and Otto Frey, trading as M. Kline & Co., endorsers of Daniel Cams.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 61£. Assumpsit by Hertz Keiser against Max Kline and Otto Frey, trading as M. Kline & Co., endorsers of Daniel Cams. On the 5th day of May 1875 Daniel' Cams executed and delivered three judgment notes under seal, each for $122.16, payable respectively at three, five and seven months, to M. Kline & Co. Before maturity of the said notes M. Kline, one of the firm, transferred the notes for value, to Hertz Keiser by endorsement in the following words : “ The within for the use of Hertz Keiser with…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered
2Per curiam
An assignment of a specialty “ with recourse” certainly meant something. Without these words it is clear the assignee could not come back upon .the assignor to make good the debt in the .event of the insolvency of the obligor. If it had been an endorsement of a note, on which recourse could be had at law, “without recourse,” certainly every one would understand the expression as intended to relieve the endorser from a legal liability. *487Why then should not “ with recourse” be interpreted to mean a liability by contract, when none existed in law ? The…
3Cited by5 opinions
- Miners State Bank v. AuksztokalnisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Oberlin v. ParrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Nuetzel v. MacKieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Bryant v. McGowanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Commercial Banking Corp. v. Rooney, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1941