Jenkins v. White
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 109, July T., 1891, by defendants, Eloise White and W. W. H. Davis, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 121, on verdict for plaintiff, Charles S. Jenkins. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal No. 109, July T., 1891, by defendants, Eloise White and W. W. H. Davis, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1889, No. 121, on verdict for plaintiff, Charles S. Jenkins. Assumpsit on a promissory note. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The defendant presented the following points: “ 3. If the residence of Eloise White was not known to the officers of the bank, the facts as to what was done to ascertain it being ascertained and undisputed, ‘ due diligence ’ was not shown on the part of the officers of the bank, (one of whom was the notary,) to ascertain…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The defendants were sued in the court below as joint indorsers of a promissory note. Their defence was, that notice of non-payment, as required by law, had not been given. Defendant Davis resides in Doylestown, Bucks Co.; defendant White resides in Tennessee. The residence of the latter does not appear to have been known to the bank officers at the time the note matured. The notary made inquiry of the officers of the bank, and, being unable to obtain her address, he sent notice of non-payment, with copy of protest, to defendant Davis, at Doylestown, and mailed a like notice to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Allentown National Bank v. NallinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Genesee County Savings Bank v. RosenthalMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Salmons v. BrockettCuyahoga Circuit Court · 1911
- Ward v. Carlis, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1937