Chambers v. Union National Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Chambers v. Union National Bank

78 Pa. 205, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 122

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 2, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 Pa. 205 (Chambers v. Union National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Union National Bank, 78 Pa. 205, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 122 (Pa. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, April 2d, 1875,

Per Curiam.

We discover no error in this case. The draft of the First National Bank of Warsaw, Indiana, on the Union National Bank of Philadelphia, never having reached the hands of C. J. Jordarf, ,the payee, it is evident the time lost before the discovery of the forgery of his signature was owing to no fault of the Union National Bank. Notice was given by it to Chambers & Cattell as sooii as a knowledge of the fact came to the officers of the bank. In regard to the endorsement of Jordan, it is to be noticed it was a signature in the line of the title of Chambers & Cattell. The presumption is that the drawee of a bill is acquainted with the signature of the drawer, his own correspondent, and, therefore, a voluntary payment to a bond fide holder for value cannot be recovered back. So the law was before the Act of 5th April 1849, 16 P. F. Smith 435. But surely the drawee is not to be supposed to know all the endorsements on the bill down to that of him who presents it for payment. There might be half a dozen endorsements of distinct persons entirely unknown to the bank, and certainly the holder must guaranty them to the bank, and not vice versa. We see no error in the way the cash was submitted to the jury. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, April 2d, 1875,

Per Curiam.

We discover no error in this case. The draft of the First National Bank of Warsaw, Indiana, on the Union National Bank of Philadelphia, never having reached the hands of C. J. Jordarf, ,the payee, it is evident the time lost before the discovery of the forgery of his signature was owing to no fault of the Union National Bank. Notice was given by it to Chambers & Cattell as sooii as a knowledge of the fact came to the officers of the bank. In regard to the endorsement of Jordan, it is to be noticed it was a signature in the line of the title of Chambers & Cattell. The presumption is that the drawee of a bill is acquainted with the signature of the drawer, his own correspondent, and, therefore, a voluntary payment to a bond fide holder for value cannot be recovered back. So the law was before the Act of 5th April 1849, 16 P. F. Smith 435. But surely the drawee is not to be supposed to know all the endorsements on the bill down to that of him who presents it for payment. There might be half a dozen endorsements of distinct persons entirely unknown to the bank, and certainly the holder must guaranty them to the bank, and not vice versa. We see no error in the way the cash was submitted to the jury. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Pa. 205, 1875 Pa. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-union-national-bank-pa-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack