West Branch Bank v. Fulmer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from a special court for Lycoming county. July-25, 27. This was an action against the endorser of a note, given in renewal of a similar one discounted by plaintiffs, for the use of the drawer, Richard1 Cochran. Before the original note matured, Cochran & Perry gave, as collateral security, the notes of Beers, Cochran & Co., endorsed by Cochran & Perry.
Read the full summary
In error from a special court for Lycoming county. July-25, 27. This was an action against the endorser of a note, given in renewal of a similar one discounted by plaintiffs, for the use of the drawer, Richard1 Cochran. Before the original note matured, Cochran & Perry gave, as collateral security, the notes of Beers, Cochran & Co., endorsed by Cochran & Perry. Oné of-these ’ being paid, the note now in question was given in renewal for the balance of the former note; and Beers, Cochran & Co.’s note, endorsed by Cochran & Perry, remaining unpaid, was also renewed by the plaintiffs, and left…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
Coryell testified that the note drawn by Beers, Cochran & Co. was left at the bank with general instructions to collect it, and to apply the avails of it to Fulmer’s endorsement of Cochran’s separate note; and whether it is viewed as having been deposited simply for collection, or as collateral security, it was the duty of the bank, in the absence of specific instructions, to follow the usual course. But a bank employed to collect, is bound to present for payment, and to give notice of dishonour, only when those measures are necessary to preserve its employers’ recourse to those who are…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- President of the Michigan State Bank v. HastingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Gowan v. JacksonNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Taylor v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Deacon v. SmaltzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899