M'Gee v. Northumberland Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Perry county. This was an action by the Northumberland Bank against Rody M’Gee, on his indorsement of a note drawn to his order by Peter Ritner for 600 dollars, payable at the bank.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Perry county. This was an action by the Northumberland Bank against Rody M’Gee, on his indorsement of a note drawn to his order by Peter Ritner for 600 dollars, payable at the bank. Plaintiff gave in evidence the note, and the notary’s certificate of protest, which stated that he demanded payment at the bank, and received for answer, “ that no provision was made there for payment thereof, whereof I gave notice in writing to the indorser of said note.” Tested at Northumberland, November 10, 1832. Defendant called witnesses, viz: George Thorp, sworn. — R. M’Gee…
1Per curiam
The interpretation of a paper as to its legal effect, which belongs to the court, is not to be confounded with its interpretation as evidence of a fact, which belongs to the jury. Such is the principle of Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Penns. Rep. 383. That was the case of a deposition; but is not the protest of a notary, like a deposition, substituted for oral testimony delivered at the bar. It is but the testimony of a witness still; and its having been put upon paper, not more for the sake of convenience than necessity, cannot change its properties or its nature. Had the notary testified in person,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Zollner v. MoffittSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Farmers' National Bank v. MarshallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Morley Auto Co. v. Pittsburg Machine Tool Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Wood v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1843
- Dougherty v. HebbleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932