Shaw v. Wallis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The defendant’s counsel insisted, that the note and bill were for the same debt, and the circumstances of the plaintiff’s keeping the bill in his hands above seventeen years before he commenced his action, though he brought his suit on the note many years before, was urged as strong evidence of it.
Read the full summary
The defendant’s counsel insisted, that the note and bill were for the same debt, and the circumstances of the plaintiff’s keeping the bill in his hands above seventeen years before he commenced his action, though he brought his suit on the note many years before, was urged as strong evidence of it. But to put the matter out of all question, they offered in testimony the answer of colonel Antill to interrogatories administered to him under a commission, showing that the consideration of the note and hill was the same original debt and that there had been no other transactions between the…
1Opinion of the Court
In an action by the indorsee of a bill of exchange against the exceptor, the latter cannot call the drawer as a witness to disprove the plaintiff’s right of recovery, by showing that the bill and a former promissory note were given for the same debt, the note having been paid; but the court will go great lengths in receiving evidence in the ease of frauds.
S UR bill of exchange, by endorsee against the acceptor. Pleas payment.
It appeared in evidence, that on the 6th Marchl876, the defendant gave his promissory note to John Antill for 1581. New York currency, payable on demand, which was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Freeman v. BrittinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1839
- Dunbar v. BreeseWisconsin Supreme Court · 1841
- Knight v. PackardCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1825
- Todd v. StaffordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1827