First National Bank of Clarion v. Gregg
| Decision Date | 06 January 1876 |
| Citation | 79 Pa. 384 |
| Parties | First National Bank of Clarion <I>versus</I> Gregg & Co. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 217.
G. A. Jenks, for plaintiff in error.—As to the sufficiency of the affidavit of defence: Black v. Halstead, 3 Wright 64; Eyre v. Yohe, 17 P. F. Smith 477; Bank of Metropolis v. N. E. Bank, 1 Howard 234, s. c. 6 Howard 212; Jones v. Milliken, 2 Wright 252. As to the ownership of the note: Chitty on Bills 232, 233; Story on Bills 207, 211; Burdick v. Green, 15 Johnson 247.
W. L. Corbett, for defendant in error, cited Wilson v. Smith, 3 Howard 763; Jones v. Milliken; Black v. Halstead, supra.
Brady & Co. did not become the owners of the note by the plaintiff's endorsement and delivery of it to them for collection, and they had no right to pledge it, or direct its proceeds to be placed to their credit in payment of their indebtedness to the bank. It is true that they were the apparent owners of the note, and, in the absence of notice of the plaintiffs' title, the bank had the right to treat them as the real owners. If it had made advances or given new credits to Brady & Co. on the faith of the note, it would undoubtedly be entitled to retain the amount out of the proceeds. But just at this point the defence wholly fails. The affidavit of the cashier does not show that the bank made any advances or gave any new credits on the faith of the note. Nor does it show that it incurred any liability, or did anything by which its condition is worse than it would have been if it had not received the note for collection and credit, or that it will suffer any loss or damage if the credit is not allowed. If so, the bank has clearly no equity which entitles it to withhold the proceeds from the owners of the note.
The averment in the supplemental affidavit, that to the best of the cashier's knowledge and belief the plaintiffs were not the owners of the claim when due, but the same was owned by Brady & Co., must be disregarded. Its insufficiency is apparent. It does not purport to be made on the affiant's actual personal knowledge, and it is defective in not setting forth the sources of his information, or asserting any expectation of ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bernstein
...to be made on such person's actual personal knowledge and does not purport to "verify" the truth of the statement. First National Bank v. Gregg, 79 Pa. 384, 387 (1875). The majority also says that the district court "proceeded to clarify" its charge concerning defendants' duty to "insure" t......
-
The Rock Springs National Bank v. Luman
...such consideration as will divest Luman of his property in the fund. (3 How., 764; 36 Mo. 599; 17 Mo. App., 245; 6 Conn. 521; 30 Md. 392; 79 Pa. 384; 41 id., 251; 114 id., 328; Pars. on Cont., 104; Burnett v. Bank, 38 Mich. 630.) The following were also cited in support of the proposition t......
-
The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. Johnson
...N.Y. 384, 22 N.E. 1031; Blaine v. Bourne, 11 R.I. 119; Claflin v. Wilson, 51 Iowa 15, 50 N.W. 578; Hoffman v. Bank, 46 N.J.L. 604; Bank v. Gregg, 79 Pa. 384; Bank Clark, 23 Minn. 263; First Nat. Bank of Crown Point v. First Nat. Bank of Richmond, 76 Ind. 561; Tyson v. Bank, 77 Md. 412, 26 A......
-
Ferguson v. Quinn
... ... 1 ... A ... summons in ejectment to the first Monday of December, 1886, ... for a lot in the Sixteenth ... ...