Ritter v. Singmaster
| Decision Date | 17 May 1873 |
| Citation | 73 Pa. 400 |
| Parties | Ritter <I>et al. versus</I> Singmaster <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
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.
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 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Uhlig's Estate
...the banks the original notes. Forgery on a renewal note does not bar a holder from recovering upon the original note. Ritter v. Singmaster, 73 Pa. 400; West Phila. Nat. Bank v. Field, 143 Pa. 473, 22 A. 829, 24 Am. St. Rep. 562; Second Nat'l Bank of Reading v. Wentzel, 151 Pa. 142, 24 A. 10......
-
Womelsdorf Union Bank v. Royer
...never paid by these spurious and fraudulent and forged notes which were mere nullities -- given in renewal of the first note" ; Ritter v. Singmaster, 73 Pa. 400. " It is unnecessary to discuss so plain a proposition that the plaintiff bank did not lose its right to recover on the note in su......
-
Biddy v. People's Bank
...... previous acceptance of the renewal note, by regaining. possession of the original note and suing thereon. Ritter. v. Singmaster, 73 Pa. 400; Goodrich v. Tracy,. 43 Vt. 314, 5 Am.Rep. 281; Allen v. Sharpe, 37 Ind. 67, 10 Am.Rep. 80, 85; McDougall v. Walling, ......
-
Droege v. Hoagland State Bank
...Rep. 617; Stratton v. McMakin (1879) 84 Ky 641, 4 Am. St. Rep. 215; Eagle Bank v. Smith (1823) 5 Conn. 71, 13 Am. Dec. 37; Ritter v. Singmaster (1873) 73 Pa. 400. The only difference between the Lovinger Case, supra, and the case at bar is the number of renewals accepted by the bank. There ......