Brittain v. Doylestown Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bucks county, in which an action of assumpsit was brought by the Doylestown Bank of Bucks county against Alexander C. Brittain and Samuel B. Brittain, trading under the firm of A. C. Brittain & Co., to recover the amount of two promissory notes for $700 each, made by John Hank payable to the order of the defendants at the Doylestown Bank, and endorsed by them; one dated April 14, 1837, at ninety days, the other May 17, 1837, at sixty, days.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Bucks county, in which an action of assumpsit was brought by the Doylestown Bank of Bucks county against Alexander C. Brittain and Samuel B. Brittain, trading under the firm of A. C. Brittain & Co., to recover the amount of two promissory notes for $700 each, made by John Hank payable to the order of the defendants at the Doylestown Bank, and endorsed by them; one dated April 14, 1837, at ninety days, the other May 17, 1837, at sixty, days. On both there was an endorsement, signed by the defendants, that as endorser they waived all notice of the non-payment of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
Notwithstanding the multiplicity of these exceptions, few of them present any tangible surface; and we are compelled to restrain our notice of them to those that are susceptible of particular examination.
The judgment obtained by the directors from Hank, was said to be collusive. Against whom ? Certainly not against his endorsers, who had no lien or particular claim on his effects. There can be no collusion where there is a bona fide debt to be secured; and the bank, holding other notes drawn by him, on which the endorsements were…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Annville National Bank v. KetteringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Uplinger v. BryanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1849