Miller v. Weeks
| Decision Date | 17 October 1853 |
| Citation | 22 Pa. 89 |
| Parties | Miller <I>versus</I> Weeks. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Woods, for plaintiff in error.—It was said that Holmes proved the signature of Miller to the note only, not his endorsement. That Kurtz, the other witness, had never seen either the defendant Weeks, or Winslow, Lanier & Co., write. The letters mentioned by him were to the banking-house in which the witness was clerk, and it did not appear that he had ever read them. It was contended that his belief as to the endorsement of their name on the note was not based on sufficient knowledge.
It was said that the plaintiff's attorney was desired to state only what he had learned from Winslow, Lanier & Co. in the presence of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's declarations to others in his presence.
Other assignments were remarked upon. As to the necessity of proving endorsements on a note, reference was made, in another case between the same parties, to Chitty on Bills, 571, 10th ed.
That the judgment was erroneous, as it exceeded the verdict, reference was made to 3 W. & Ser. 333; 6 Barr 330.
Knox, for defendant in error.—It was not necessary to prove the endorsement, for a copy of the note having been filed, in conformity with a rule of Court, the execution of the note was to be taken to be admitted, there being no affidavit denying its execution. The term execution, in the rule, does not apply exclusively to the drawing of the note, but includes its endorsement also.
In the affidavit the plaintiff claimed $5624.75 with interest from 19th September, 1851, which is the amount of the verdict. In the declaration the note was described, and it was stated when it became due; and at the time of the filing of the declaration $6000 covered the amount then due. The additional amount was interest which accrued subsequently. Cited 8 Ser. & R. 263; 2 Harris 83.
It was contended that the declaration might be amended in this Court: 5 Binn. 572; 1 W. & Ser. 365; 5 Harris 180.
The opinion of the Court was delivered, October 17, by WOODWARD, J.
The note was negotiable, and was negotiated in due course, which gave the holder a right of action in his own name. The declaration sets forth his title with sufficient fulness and formality, and the copy of the note, endorsed on the declaration, furnished the defendant with precise notice of the character and extent of the plaintiff's claim. Then under the pleadings in the cause and the rules of the District Court, the plaintiff was entitled to read the note in evidence without proving its execution or endorsements; but to take away all apparent grounds of objection, he proved the signature of the maker by Mr. Holmes, and gave evidence tending to prove that of the endorsers, which the Court submitted, as they were bound to do, to the jury.
These observations dispose of six of the assignments of error, and two only, the second and the eighth, remain.
Now as to the second: The defendant offered to prove that the note belonged to Winslow, Lanier & Co., the first endorsees, for whom the plaintiff was merely trustee, and that it was without consideration. The Court admitted this offer; but, when the defendant called Mr. Knox, the plaintiff's attorney, to sustain it, he declined to state any communications made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Unterharnscheidt v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co.
...Rep. 266), and in the absence of statutory restrictions such instruments are enforceable in the hands of a purchaser or assignee (Miller v. Weeks, 22 Pa. 89). It has also been held that a holder to whom a promissory note payable to order has been transferred by delivery obtains title theret......
-
Unterharnscheidt v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
...N.W. 854), and in the absence of statutory restrictions such instruments are enforceable in the hands of a purchaser or assignee (Miller v. Weeks, 22 Pa. 89). It has also been that a holder to whom a promissory note payable to order has been transferred by delivery obtains title thereto and......
-
Dunbar Furnace Co. v. Fairchild
... ... as to the true points of inquiry, it is ground for reversal: ... Gregg Tp. v. Jamison, 55 Pa. 474; Youngman v ... Miller, 98 Pa. 196; Bisbing v. Bank, 93 Pa. 82; ... Slaymaker v. St. John, 5 W. 32; Farley v. Ranck, 3 ... W. & S. 555 ... Mr ... Edward ... Lindsay, 2 Pa. 381; Morris v. McNamee, 17 Pa ... 173; Spackman v. Byers, 6 S. & R. 385; Miller v ... Weeks, 22 Pa. 89; Trego v. Lewis, 58 Pa. 463 ... 3 ... "The man who cuts timber is bound to know it is on his ... own land, or that he has ... ...
-
Coons v. McKees Rocks Borough
... ... cause of action, and under the facts at bar it was within the ... power of the court to allow the amendment: Miller v ... Weeks, 22 Pa. 89. Since the original award had been ... appealed by the defendant at the time of the death of Emma V ... McFarland, the ... ...