Maginn v. Dollar Savings Bank

18 A. 901, 131 Pa. 362, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1120
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 6, 1890·No. No. 264·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curt am:

• It was held in Saylor v. Bushong, 100 Pa. 23, that the holder of a check cannot maintain an action thereon in his own name against the drawees, though they have sufficient funds of the drawer, if they refuse to accept it. . This is familar law. It is claimed, however, that the case in hand does not come within this rule, for the reason that the check or order in controversy was for the entire balance due McCartney by the Dollar Savings Bank, upon which it was drawn, and that said order was an equitable assignment of the fund. If we treat it as an equitable assignment, it is clear that Maginn could not sue thereon in his own name. But there is a more serious difficulty in the way. The act of May 10,1881, P. L. 17, provides “ that no person within this state shall be charged, as an acceptor on a bill of exchange, draft, or order drawn for the payment of money, exceeding twenty dollars, unless his acceptance shall be in writing, signed by himself, or his lawful agent.” The paper upon which this suit is brought is a draft or order for the payment of money exceeding twenty dollars, and there is no evidence that the bank on which it was drawn accepted it in writing. The act is plain in its terms, and is a flat bar to a recovery in this action.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Maginn v. Dollar Savings Bank, 18 A. 901, 131 Pa. 362, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1120 (Pa. 1890).

18 A. 901 (Maginn v. Dollar Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

S. Catanzaro & Sons, Inc. v. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings Bank
126 A. 812 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)
Croyle v. Guelich
35 Pa. Super. 356 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Howard H. Clark & Co. v. Warren Savings Bank
31 Pa. Super. 647 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Botsford v. Lull
30 Pa. Super. 292 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Shutt Improvement Co. v. Erwin & Francis
71 P. 521 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1903)
Bryan v. First National Bank
54 A. 480 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)
Erickson v. Inman
54 P. 949 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Erisman v. Delaware County National Bank
1 Pa. Super. 144 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1896)
National State Bank v. Lindeman
28 A. 1022 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1894)
Reilly v. Daly
28 A. 493 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1894)