Albrecht v. Strimpler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Schuylkill. April 5. Debt upon a negotiable note, at five months, dated November 1, 1848, for $70 50. Defendant having given notice,. proved that 'this, with other notes, had been obtained by Beveridge, the payee, on an undertaking to find iron ore in the defendant’s-land, under a promise not to use them until he had fulfilled his agreement.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Schuylkill. April 5. Debt upon a negotiable note, at five months, dated November 1, 1848, for $70 50. Defendant having given notice,. proved that 'this, with other notes, had been obtained by Beveridge, the payee, on an undertaking to find iron ore in the defendant’s-land, under a promise not to use them until he had fulfilled his agreement. The plaintiffs called Wheeler, who said he had received a note of plaintiffs’ from Beveridge, in December, 1843, for $15, and that plaintiffs, about that time, paid Beveridge $6, and assumed a debt of $5. Another witness…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
In an action upon a negotiable instrument, after the defendant has given proof that the note or bill wa» improperly obtained, and put in circulation by duress, felony, or fraud, he may call upon the - plaintiff, under a previous notice, to show that he is a bona fide holder for value, on pain of being other-, wise considered as standing in the same predicament with him who wrongfully gave it currency; Whittaker v. Edmunds, 1 Mood. & Rob. 366; Holme v. Karsper, 5 Binn. 469; but mere absence' or failure of consideration between the original part^ is inoperative to put the plaintiff on such…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Holme v. KarsperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Knight v. PughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Brown v. StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843