Jones v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant,'from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1897, No. 215, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit against indorser of a promissory note. Before Finletter, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the note had not been protested, and that no notice of nonpayment had been sent to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant,'from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1897, No. 215, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit against indorser of a promissory note. Before Finletter, P. J. At the trial it appeared that the note had not been protested, and that no notice of nonpayment had been sent to the defendant. Plaintiff testified that on March 30, 1897, about twelve days before the note became due, the defendant called upon him at his place of business “ and told me that he could not pay that note when it became due. He said that he had met with unfortunate business…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was evidence enough in the testimony of the plaintiff to carry the case to the jury on the question of waiver of notice oí protest. The court correctly left this question to the jury and they found in favor of the plaintiff. We do not see how they could have found otherwise. The case of Reiff v. McMiller, 45 Legal Int. 26, cited by appellant, has no application. It does not raise the question at issue here.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- First Nat. Bk. of Granville v. DeloneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933