First National Bank v. Diehl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 180, Jan. T., 1907, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1906, No. 135, on verdict for defendants in case of First National Bank of York v. S. K. Diehl et al. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Bittenger, P. J. The court charged as follows : We have tried an important case in a very short time by means of an agreement between counsel by which they have admitted all the facts in the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 180, Jan. T., 1907, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. York Co., April T., 1906, No. 135, on verdict for defendants in case of First National Bank of York v. S. K. Diehl et al. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Bittenger, P. J. The court charged as follows : We have tried an important case in a very short time by means of an agreement between counsel by which they have admitted all the facts in the case. A promissory note was signed by the carriage company, and the note indorsed for $5,000 and discounted in the First National Bank of York. It was indorsed by a number of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
There are eight joint indorsers on the note on which this suit is brought. They were all notified of nonpayment at maturity, and therefore, on their promise to pay on the single condition that the maker do not, became liable for the whole amount due and unpaid. The appellant made out a prima facie case by prolong the execution of the note, together with the indorsements, and by showing that notice of nonpayment at maturity had been given. The defendants in the court below successfully contended that they were discharged because of an agreement entered into between…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shaffstall v. McDanielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Zane v. KennedySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1873