Parke v. Lowrie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. James Parke against Matthew B. Lowrie. One Waters drew a promissory note dated Pittsburgh, 8th April 1839, payable to the order of Armorer, who endorsed the same to Ingersoll, who endorsed the same to Roseburg, who endorsed the same to the plaintiff, who placed the same in the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Bank for collection.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. James Parke against Matthew B. Lowrie. One Waters drew a promissory note dated Pittsburgh, 8th April 1839, payable to the order of Armorer, who endorsed the same to Ingersoll, who endorsed the same to Roseburg, who endorsed the same to the plaintiff, who placed the same in the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Bank for collection. The note was not paid at maturity, but placed in the hand of the defendant, who was a duly commissioned notary public, for protest and notice. The note was duly protested, after the notary had exhibited the same at the…
1Per curiam
A protest is not necessary to charge the endorser of a promissory note; and the intervention of a notary is sanctioned, not enjoined, by the statute, which makes his act evidence of demand and notice of dishonour. When the holder, therefore, chooses to employ him instead of a private person, the law of responsibility between them is the law of principal and agent, or master and servant. It was effectively held so in Bellemire v. The Bank of the United States, (4 Whart. 105). What, then, was the defendant employed to do? Just as much as it was customary for other notaries to do; and it is not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bellemire v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hamburger Bros. & Co. v. Third National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Eason v. IsbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Hamburger Bros. v. Third National Bank & Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938