Ritter v. Singmaster

• Decision Date: 17 May 1873
• Citation: Ritter v. Singmaster, 73 Pa. 400 (Pa. 1873)
• Parties: Ritter <I>et al. versus</I> Singmaster <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

73 Pa. 400

Ritter et al. versus Singmaster et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 21, 1873.

May 17, 1873.

March 21st 1873.

Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and MERCUR, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of January Term 1873, No. 192.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

C. J. Erdman and J. D. Stiles, for plaintiffs in error:—As to the extinguishment of the original note by taking the forged notes, cited, Chitty on Bills 173; Hill v. Bostick, 10 Yerger 410; Letcher v. Bank, 1 Dana (Ky.) Rep. 84.

W. H. Lowden and E. Harvey, for defendants in error:—As to the same point, cited Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 Conn. 71; Packford v. Maxwell, 6 Tenn. R. 52; 2 Parsons on Notes 595; Ramsdale v. Horton, 3 Barr 330; Watson v. McLaven, 19 Wendell 587.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 17th 1873, by READ, C. J.

The plaintiffs, who are partners, trading under the name of The Millerstown Savings Bank, are engaged in the banking business in the Borough of Millerstown, in Lehigh county. On the 9th of April 1870, they discounted a note drawn by Erwin Burkhalter and endorsed by the defendants, dated the 8th of the same month, for $1000, payable ninety days after date at the Allentown National Bank. At maturity this note not being paid was protested for non-payment, of which the endorsers had notice. About seventeen days afterwards said Burkhalter brought to the plaintiffs his promissory note, dated 8th July 1870, payable sixty days after date, for a similar amount, to the order of the defendants, and purporting to be endorsed by them, and which was given to the said plaintiffs as a renewal of the note of 8th April 1870. On the 9th September 1870, this note became due, and not having been paid, was protested for non-payment, of which the endorsers had legal notice.

On the 3d November 1870, the said Burkhalter brought his promissory note dated 9th September 1870, to the plaintiffs for similar amount, payable ninety days after date, drawn by himself and purporting to be regularly endorsed by the defendants, which note was again given to the plaintiffs by the said Burkhalter as a further renewal of the antecedent and original debt. On the 11th December 1870, this note was protested for non-payment, of which the defendants had legal notice.

On the 24th January 1871, suit was brought by the plaintiffs on this last note, and on another note for $800 against the defendants. In an affidavit filed by the defendants,...