President of the Bank of North America v. M'Knight
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Action against the defendant as surviving indorser of two promissory notes. One of them was not disputed. The.other which came in question, was a note for #425, dated 10th February 1785, drawn by Isaac Sidman, payable to Allison and M’Knight or order, in forty-five days after date, and by them indorsed to the bank. This noté therefore became due on the 27th March, and the three days of grace expired on the 30th March.
Read the full summary
Action against the defendant as surviving indorser of two promissory notes. One of them was not disputed. The.other which came in question, was a note for #425, dated 10th February 1785, drawn by Isaac Sidman, payable to Allison and M’Knight or order, in forty-five days after date, and by them indorsed to the bank. This noté therefore became due on the 27th March, and the three days of grace expired on the 30th March. It appeared in evidence, that the note had been discounted at the bank at the particular request of the defendant, and that he complained of its not being done on his first…
1Opinion of the Court
*M’Kean C. J.
I sit single in the determination ot ' *1471 this cause, my brethren declining to take any part in the decision, as being stockholders in the bank of North America. The present case seems to differ from ordinary notes, by reason of the special undertaking of the defendant. In this business, notice was given to the indorser, the second day after the note became due, allowing for the usual days of grace. A single day has only intervened.
What is reasonable time for notice, in such cases, where the parties live in the same city, or near to each other, is now settled to be matter of law,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phelan v. MossSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rahm v. Philadelphia BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829