Brenzer v. Wightman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. James Wightman against Mathias Brenzer. This action was founded upon the following due-bill:— “ Due Mathias Brenzer $204.91 for value received, May 28th, 1837. Hugh Curran.” Endorsed, “ Pay James Wightman or order. Mathias Brenzer.’ Wightman obtained this due-bill from Brenzer in October 1837, and wanting to raise money, he obtained it from Christian Caslow, and gave him the due-bill, as collateral security for it.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. James Wightman against Mathias Brenzer. This action was founded upon the following due-bill:— “ Due Mathias Brenzer $204.91 for value received, May 28th, 1837. Hugh Curran.” Endorsed, “ Pay James Wightman or order. Mathias Brenzer.’ Wightman obtained this due-bill from Brenzer in October 1837, and wanting to raise money, he obtained it from Christian Caslow, and gave him the due-bill, as collateral security for it. A month or two after Caslow got it, he demanded payment from Curran;, but he was unable to pay, and in a month or two after that,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
There is certainly a discrepancy to be found m the reported cases in this State on the question whether the reasonableness of notice to an endorser of the non-payment of a promissory note or bill of exchange is a question for the court or for *266the jury; and the same remark may be made on the older eases on this subject in many of the other States of the Union and in England. But the doctrine seems now to be settled as a rule of commercial law, that where the facts are ascertained or undisputed, what shall constitute due diligence in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Taylor v. BrydenNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Ireland v. KipNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Leidy v. TammanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- M'Kinney v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
- Hussey v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Gervis v. KaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- First National Bank v. FalkenhanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Dyas v. HansonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Gay v. RookeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Wright v. Hart's AdministratorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.