Warren National Bank v. Jamieson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The effect of the renewals and payments and additions to collateral made by defendant over a period of years is not a matter of estoppel prejudicing plaintiff bank, but is a matter of waiving his defense by such conduct.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
Plaintiff’s action is to recover from defendant the amount due on six promissory notes, representing money loaned by it to him aggregating in amount $85,343.75 with interest. The trial judge instructed the jury to render a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and from the resulting judgment we have this appeal by defendant.
The defense attempted to be made was that the bank, through its cashier, had entered into an agreement with defendant to sell 3,000 shares of White Oil Corporation stock, pledged by him as collateral for his obligations, which was then selling on the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bank of Hooversville v. SagersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- First National Bank v. BaerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Bangor Trust Co. v. ChristineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Longacre v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Ebensburg Trust Co. v. PikeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- West Rutland Trust Co. v. HoustonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1932
- Philadelphia v. Rosin's Parking Lots, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Peoples Wayne County Bank v. HarveyMichigan Supreme Court · 1934
- First Nat. Bk., Wmsbg., for Use v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- First National Bank v. SingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.