Jones v. Lewis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. This action was brought by E. Jones & Co., endorsers of a promissory note drawn by F. R. Smith, on the 2d of July 1842, for $ 143, payable to the order of A. Kirk Lewis, the defendant, at six months, and endorsed by him to the plaintiffs, who deposited it in bank for collection.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. This action was brought by E. Jones & Co., endorsers of a promissory note drawn by F. R. Smith, on the 2d of July 1842, for $ 143, payable to the order of A. Kirk Lewis, the defendant, at six months, and endorsed by him to the plaintiffs, who deposited it in bank for collection. Being unpaid at maturity, it was put into the hands of a notary for protest, and protested by him, after demand of payment from the drawer, notice of which was deposited by him in the post-office at Pittsburgh, directed to the defendant, who lived beyond the Monongahela…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
The rule is, that notice must be served on the person, or left at his dwelling or place of business: the exception to it is that it may be transmitted through the post-office when there is a violent probability that it will reach him in the regular course of the mail. But this exception is insufficient to admit of a deposit in the post-office of notice to an endorser who lives in the post-town, or the town inhabited by the holder. The post-office is an interdicted medium of communication with such an endorser, not because it is essentially…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Tanner v. HughesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Big Sandy National Bank v. ChiltonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Bondurant v. EverettCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Sharpe v. DrewIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.