Brunt v. Potter
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 138, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March. T., 1896, No. 208, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. This action is brought to recover the sum of $250, the amount of a certain promissory note, together with interest from maturity, and $2.06 protest charges thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 138, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from order of O. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March. T., 1896, No. 208, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a promissory note. This action is brought to recover the sum of $250, the amount of a certain promissory note, together with interest from maturity, and $2.06 protest charges thereon. The said note is drawn by Jacob F. Potter & Co. to the order of The Builders’ National Machine Mortar Company, and by them indorsed, and also indorsed by the said Henry Van Brunt, the plaintiff, and was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The liabilities of the parties to accommodation paper, in this state, have long been settled. As said by Black, C. J., in Lord v. The Ocean Bank, 20 Pa. 384, “ He who chooses to put himself in the front of a negotiable instrument for the benefit of his friend must abide the consequence. Accommodation paper is a loan of the maker’s name without restriction on the manner of its use.”
The proposition that an indorser of such a note, who has paid it after maturity, upon the maker’s default, cannot recover from the maker, for the reason that he does not receive it until after…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lord v. Ocean BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Hughes v. LargeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1845
- Long v. RhawnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Litcher v. North City Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- First National Bank v. DickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903