George Prentice and George Weissinger, Copartners Doing Business Under the Style and Firm of Prentice Weissinger, Plaintiffs In Error v. Platoff Zane Administrator

Citation49 U.S. 470,12 L.Ed. 1160,8 How. 470
PartiesGEORGE D. PRENTICE AND GEORGE W. WEISSINGER, COPARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE AND FIRM OF PRENTICE & WEISSINGER, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. PLATOFF ZANE'S ADMINISTRATOR
Decision Date01 January 1850
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

'PRENTICE & WEISSINGER, Plaintiffs,

and

PLATOFF ZANE, Defendant.

'The defendant in this suit will offer evidence to show, and will insist at the trial, that the note described in the declaration was obtained from him, said defendant, by the payee thereof, by means of misrepresentation and fraud, and without any value having been received therefor by said defendant, and will require the plaintiffs to prove at the trial the consideration, if any, paid by them, or the previous holder or holders thereof, for the same, and the time and manner in which they became possessed of said note. Very respectfully, &c.,

PLATOFF ZANE,

By JACOB & LAMB, his Attorneys.

'TO MESSRS. PRENTICE & WEISSINGER.'

'Due service of above admitted.

'M. C. GOOD, Attorney for Plaintiffs.'

We further find the statute of Pennsylvania in force within that state at the time of the execution of said note, and the indorsement thereof and delivery of the same to the plaintiffs as aforesaid, in these words:——

'Act of 27th February, 1797.4 Dall., 102; 3 Smith, 278

'An Act to devise a particular Form of Promissory Notes not liable to any Plea of Defalcation or Set-off.

'6. SEC. 1. All notes in writing, commonly called promissory notes, bearing date in the city or county of Philadelphia,

whereby any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or copartnership in trade, shall promise to pay, or cause to be paid, to any other person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, or copartnership in trade, and to the order of the payee for value in account, or for value received, and in the body of which the words 'without defalcation,' or 'without set-off,' shall be inserted, shall be held by the indorsees discharged from any claim of defalcation or set-off by the drawers or indorsers thereof; and the indorsees shall be entitled to recover against the drawer and indorsers such sums as, on the face of the said notes, or by indorsements thereon, shall appear to be due: Provided always, that in every action brought by the holder of any such note, whether against the drawer or indorsers, the defendant may set off and defalk so far as the plaintiffs shall be justly indebted to him in account by bonds, specially, or otherwise.'

(See 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.), 481, and posted notes.)

'A copy from a copy filed in my office.

'Teste:

ALEXANDER T. LAIDLEY, Clerk.'

And if the law be for the plaintiffs, then we find for them the sum of $5437.50, the debt in the declaration mentioned, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the 1st day of December, 1841, till paid. But if the law be for the defendant then we find for the defendant.

T. W. HARRISON.

And because the court will consider of what judgment should be rendered upon the verdict aforesaid, time is taken until to-morrow.

Memorandum. Upon the trial of this cause, the parties, by their attorneys, filed a written agreement in the words following, to wit:—'And the parties agree that the court, in deciding upon the foregoing verdict, shall look to and regard the decisions of the courts of the state of Pennsylvania, as found in the several printed volumes of the reports thereof, to avail as much as if the same were found by said verdict, and to have such weight as in the judgment of the court they ought to have; and the parties further agree to waive all objections to said verdict on account of its finding in part evidence, and not fact. And that the court, in deciding thereupon, may make all just inferences and conclusions of fact and law from the evidence and facts therein stated, and the decisions aforesaid, which, in the opinion of the court, a jury ought to draw therefrom, if the same were submitted to them upon the trial of this cause; and that

this agreement is to be made part of the record in this suit.

'M. C. GOOD, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

JACOB & LAMB, Attorneys for Defendant.'

Which agreement is ordered to be made a part of the record in this suit.

On the 9th of September, 1846, the District Court pronounced the following judgment, viz.:—'The matters of law arising upon the special verdict in the cause being argued at a former term of this court, and the court having maturely considered thereof, it seems that the law is for the defendant.'

A writ of error brought the case up to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Badger and Mr. Bibb, for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Ewing, for the defendant.

The points raised by Mr. Bibb, for the plaintiffs in error, were the following:

The legal right of the plaintiffs to have judgment for the sum expressed in the note stands,—1st, upon the effect of the act of 1797, as declared in the title, body, soul, and spirit of the act itself; 2d, upon principles well established by adjudged cases, which confirm and fortify their right.

I. The true meaning and effect of that act, to be collected from the expressions of the act itself, stand in the foreground.

It may be useful, and will be according to the usages of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Burger King Corp. v. Mason
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 1 Agosto 1983
    ...not resolve the essential facts, or does so in an inexplicable fashion, will not support a judgment. Prentice v. Zane's Administrator, 49 U.S. (8 HOW.) 470, 484, 12 L.Ed. 1160, 1166 (1850); Hartnett v. Brown & Bigelow, 394 F.2d 438, 441, n. 2 (10th Cir.1968). Moreover, trial judges are not ......
  • Grant County State Bank v. Northwestern Land Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 4 Enero 1915
    ... ... that it would be necessary in their business to give notes ... The by-laws provide for this ... 6 Cranch, 268, 3 L.Ed. 220; Prentice v. Zane, 8 ... How. 470, 12 L.Ed. 1160; Pint ... was prejudicial error. Marshall Field Co. v. Oren ... Ruffcorn Co ... The actual ... authority of the treasurer under the by-laws at all times was ... that of a ... powers, it not being restricted from so doing by its ... charter or by statute. 10 Cyc. 1111; ... asked another director, George H. Wilder, who testified he ... became a ... ...
  • United States v. Esnault-Pelterie
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1936
    ...U.S. 319, 325, 10 S.Ct. 833, 34 L.Ed. 214. 8 Chesapeake Insurance Co. v. Stark, 6 Cranch, 268, 273, 3 L.Ed. 220; Prentice v. Zane's Administrator, 8 How. 470, 484, 12 L.Ed. 1160; Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. 60, 63, 15 L.Ed. 265; Burr v. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co., 1 Wall. 99, 102, 17 L.Ed. 561; ......
  • Golden North Airways v. Tanana Publishing Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 12 Enero 1955
    ...This is also the general rule. Rule 49, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 53 Am.Jur., Trials, § 1084; Prentice v. Zane's Administrator, 1850, 8 How. 470, 483-484, 12 L.Ed. 1160; Graham v. Bayne, 1855, 18 How. 60, 63, 15 L.Ed. 265; Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 167 F.2d 54......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT