First National Bank v. Singer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

First National Bank v. Singer

185 A. 647, 322 Pa. 207, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 783

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 26, 1936

DocketAppeals, 93 and 94

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 A. 647 (First National Bank v. Singer) 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

First National Bank v. Singer, 185 A. 647, 322 Pa. 207, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 783 (Pa. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellants executed a note February 3, 1932. Thereafter it was renewed fourteen times before an action was instituted to recover the amount thereof, with interest. At the trial in the court below, appellants offered to *208 prove a fraudulent promise, failure of consideration and other defenses which, as appellants state, “were made prior to the signing and delivery of the first note,” on February 3,1932. The court below held, “Where the defendants in an action such as this have had knowledge of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration when renewing the note, or notes, upon which suit is brought they are estopped by their own conduct from defending on the ground of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration: Dunn v. Columbia, Nat. Bank, 204 Pa. 53; Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35; First Nat. Bank of Pgh. v. Dowling, 286 Pa. 483; Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, 301 Pa. 45.” See also Ebensburg Trust Co. v. Pike, 296 Pa. 462. The defense of set-off is disposed of by Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, supra.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Appellants executed a note February 3, 1932. Thereafter it was renewed fourteen times before an action was instituted to recover the amount thereof, with interest. At the trial in the court below, appellants offered to *208 prove a fraudulent promise, failure of consideration and other defenses which, as appellants state, “were made prior to the signing and delivery of the first note,” on February 3,1932. The court below held, “Where the defendants in an action such as this have had knowledge of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration when renewing the note, or notes, upon which suit is brought they are estopped by their own conduct from defending on the ground of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration: Dunn v. Columbia, Nat. Bank, 204 Pa. 53; Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35; First Nat. Bank of Pgh. v. Dowling, 286 Pa. 483; Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, 301 Pa. 45.” See also Ebensburg Trust Co. v. Pike, 296 Pa. 462. The defense of set-off is disposed of by Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, supra.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A. 647, 322 Pa. 207, 1936 Pa. LEXIS 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-singer-pa-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack