Haly v. Brown
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action against the payee of a note, on his endorsement in'blank, the plaintiff being the next endorser.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action against the payee of a note, on his endorsement in'blank, the plaintiff being the next endorser. On the trial before Petit, P. J., the plaintiff gave in evidence the protest of the notary on behalf of- B. Smith, the former cashier of the Bank of Pennsylvania, in which was the usual averment of notification to the endorsers. ■ The defendant then called the notary, who stated that his mode of notifying these endorsers was by sending a clerk to the plaintiff, with a noticé addressed to him, and one to defendant, with…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
It is a rule of commercial law, that when facts are ascertained and undisputed, what shall constitute due diligence in communicating, no tice of the dishonour of a bill or note, is matter *181of law to be decided by tbe court; Brenzer v. Wightman, 7 Watts & Serg. 264; Jones v. Wardell, 6 Watts & Serg. 401; Brittain v. The Doylestown Bank, 5 Watts & Serg. 98 ; Spencer v. Bank of Salina, 3 Hill, 521. It would seem, therefore, that as there were no unascertained facts, the court erred ;in submitting the question of due diligence to the jury. But if they ought to have instructed the jury in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Weakly v. Bell & SterlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Brenzer v. WightmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Smyth v. HawthornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832
3Cited by3 opinions
- Marks v. Anchor Savings BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Marwitz's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Hazlett v. BragdonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898