Mitchell v. Cooper

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mitchell v. Cooper

17 Pa. 343, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 179

DecidedFebruary 2, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Pa. 343 (Mitchell v. Cooper) 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

Mitchell v. Cooper, 17 Pa. 343, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 179 (Pa. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Coulter, J.

Hubbard was called to prove that at the time of the service of the attachment the note and bill were the property .of Holmes & Hubbard. He was rejected for that purpose on the ground of interest. It had been proved that the bill was endorsed in the regular course of business. The endorser, therefore, whose name was on the paper, could not be examined to show that the endorsement was collusive or fraudulent, or that after the endorsement, the property in the bill still remained in him. After a bill has been regularly negotiated, an endorser cannot be examined to impair or change the rights of the endorsee as they existed at the time of the endorsement; he may be examined as to subsequent facts, which go to show that the bill was paid or became invalid subsequently to his endorsement. All the other points raised in this cause are ruled in Mitchell v. Welch, the case just decided.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Coulter, J.

Hubbard was called to prove that at the time of the service of the attachment the note and bill were the property .of Holmes & Hubbard. He was rejected for that purpose on the ground of interest. It had been proved that the bill was endorsed in the regular course of business. The endorser, therefore, whose name was on the paper, could not be examined to show that the endorsement was collusive or fraudulent, or that after the endorsement, the property in the bill still remained in him. After a bill has been regularly negotiated, an endorser cannot be examined to impair or change the rights of the endorsee as they existed at the time of the endorsement; he may be examined as to subsequent facts, which go to show that the bill was paid or became invalid subsequently to his endorsement. All the other points raised in this cause are ruled in Mitchell v. Welch, the case just decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Pa. 343, 1851 Pa. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-cooper-pa-1851.