Mosser v. Criswell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 66, July T., 1891, from judgment of C. P. Union Co., Dee. T., 1889, No. 104, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit by indorser against maker of promissory note. At the trial, before Bucher, P. J., the evidence was to the effect that one Feight was maker and plaintiff indorser of a note which had been discounted in bank for the benefit of Feight.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 66, July T., 1891, from judgment of C. P. Union Co., Dee. T., 1889, No. 104, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit by indorser against maker of promissory note. At the trial, before Bucher, P. J., the evidence was to the effect that one Feight was maker and plaintiff indorser of a note which had been discounted in bank for the benefit of Feight. At maturity, Feight, with the knowledge of plaintiff, applied to defendant for the note in suit, who made the note, without consideration, to the order of the firm of which plaintiff and Feight were members. Plaintiff indorsed the note in…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
The debt fo^ which this note was given was unquestionably Feight’s, and it was incumbent on him to pay the note though he was not party to it. When it fell due and Feight was unable to pay it, plaintiff being an indorser would have been liable to be called on by the bank for payment, and therefore to have the money raised on a new note made by defendant was in a certain popular sense an accommodation, that is a convenience, to the plaintiff, just as it is a convenience to a creditor who wants his money but cannot get it from his debtor in cash, to get payment by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Rhodes v. TerheydenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Western National Bank v. LevinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Homewood Peoples Bank v. CullSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925