Snyder v. Wilt
| Decision Date | 20 July 1850 |
| Citation | 15 Pa. 59 |
| Parties | Snyder <I>versus</I> Wilt. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
2. Glover, being a party to the draft, was not competent to testify in the case: 3 W. & Ser. 557; 1 Rawle 196; 1 Barr 435, Wolf v. Fink. Further, his testimony had no tendency to prove what is necessary to constitute a defence to this action.
3. If the testimony of Glover was properly admitted, the two due-bills should have been admitted to rebut his testimony. The holder of an accommodation negotiable note may sell, discount, or pledge it for an antecedent debt: 3 Barr 381-8; 49 Law Lib. 47.
4. The plaintiff's points should have been answered without the qualifications annexed.
5. The notice of taking the first deposition of J. A. Fisher was legal notice: 8 Ser. & R. 41; 1 Barr 442; 1 Pa. Rep. 485.
Casey, for defendant in error.—The testimony of Snyder was competent, as it tended to prove that after the note was in Snyder's hands, he treated it as Barber's property. It went to show that he was not the owner of the note: 6 Barr 194-5.
2. Glover was competent: 7 W. & Ser. 89; 4 W. & Ser. 287; 6 Ser. & R. 113. A party to a negotiable instrument, actually negotiated, may prove subsequent matters, as payment or discharge: 3 Barr 381; 5 id. 51-3; 4 Rawle 307. The plaintiff's points were answered as favorably as the plaintiff had a right to expect. The defence was, that plaintiff had procured the note by fraud and undue means. This was a question for the jury.
The opinion of the court was delivered July 20, 1850, by ROGERS, J.
This is an action of debt, to recover the amount of a draft for $267.50, drawn by William Glover on John Wilt, the defendant, and accepted by him, in favor of C. S. Kendig, by whom it is endorsed, payable ninety days after date, at the Northumberland Bank. The note passed into the possession of Charles A. Snyder, the plaintiff, and, not being paid at maturity, was regularly protested. It was in his hands at the time of protest, the commencement of the suit, and the trial, and the action is brought by him as the holder of the draft. The defendant pleads payment, with leave, &c. By the plea, he admits the draft was drawn by Glover, accepted by Wilt, and in the hands of Snyder, as endorsee and holder. The defendant takes defence, as I understand the case, (which, from the manner in which it was tried, comes in a most imperfect state before us,) on the ground that the draft was given for the accommodation of a certain Robert Barber, without value, who, at the time, was in difficulty, in respect to a debt of one hundred dollars, owing by him to a certain J. Chandler; that there was no debt, as between Glover, Wilt, and Kendig, and no money consideration passing between them; that the debt of Chandler was afterward paid by John Snyder, and the object of the draft failed; that the draft was handed to Barber for that purpose, and that he passed it to C. A. Snyder, the plaintiff, as his agent, for the purpose of making the arrangement with Chandler, which having failed, the money was afterwards paid by John Snyder, as before stated. If these facts be proved, the defendant has a valid defence to the action, for Snyder would have no better right than Barber, who could not recover from Wilt, who accepted for his accommodation merely. In an action by an endorsee against the drawer of a bill, evidence was received to show that though the endorsement was general, the plaintiff held the bill merely as an agent for collection, and that the payee had requested the drawer not to pay the endorser; and this was held to be a good defence: Barber v. Prentiss, 6 Mass. R. 530; Henrick v. Carman, 10 Johns. 224. This is clear; but, unfortunately, the defendant failed to prove that it was accommodation paper. For aught that appears, it was a real, bona fide business transaction between the original parties to the note given by Glover and accepted by Wilt in payment of a debt. If this be so, it is immaterial to Wilt to whom payment is made, whether to Glover, Barber, or Snyder. A recovery by the holder will be an ample shield and protection to him, in any suit hereafter brought by any of the original parties, or by Barber. The defendant has also failed to prove that, at the time the note was endorsed to Snyder, he knew the draft was any other than it purported to be in its form — a commercial transaction, in the usual course of business. There, then, is nothing to prevent a recovery, even admitting Snyder to be nothing more than the agent of Barber. As the holder of the paper, he has a right of action against Wilt, the acceptor, who stands in the same position as the drawer or maker of a promissory note. The evidence returned with the record serves to show, either that Snyder paid value, and took an absolute transfer of the draft, or that it was endorsed to him (which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Ritter
...Newlin v. Newlin seems to have been overruled in Cunningham v. Jordan, 1 Pa. 442; Cracy v. Bailee, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 126; and Snyder v. Wilt, 15 Pa. 59. In last case named, Rogers, Judge, said, on this point: "I am well aware it is a rule that the waiver of notice on the party cannot be i......
-
Konold v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.
... ... Michigan Bank v. Eldred, 9 Wall., 544; Equitable ... Co. v. Mc Elroy, 83 F. 631, 642; Snyder v ... Will, 15 Pa. 59; Sartell v. Wilcox, 20 Pa. 116; ... American, etc., Co v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368, 380; ... Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill ... ...
-
Alias v. State
...v. State, 6 Neb. 335. Curry v. The State, 4 Neb. 555. 12 Ohio State, 312. 14 Ga. 135. 27 Ill. 440. 26 Mo. 393. 8 Ga. 178. 11 B. Monroe, 38. 15 Pa. 59. 39 Miss. 526, 535, To these instructions, and others considered in the argument, counsel who tried the case below took no exceptions; but if......
-
Fowler v. Smith
... ... charge: Borham v. Davis, 146 Pa. 72; ... Steinbrunner v. Pittsburgh & Western R.R., 146 Pa ... 504; Yerkes v. Wilson, 81* Pa. 9; Snyder v ... Wilt, 15 Pa. 59; Phila., etc. R.R. v. Alvord, ... 128 Pa. 47. On question of accord and satisfaction: ... Brenner v. Herr, 8 Pa. 106; ... ...