Saurman's Executors v. Bodey

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Saurman's Executors v. Bodey

42 Pa. 476, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 112

DecidedMay 10, 1862

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Pa. 476 (Saurman's Executors v. Bodey) 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

Saurman's Executors v. Bodey, 42 Pa. 476, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 112 (Pa. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 10th 1862, by

Woodward, J.

This is an action by an endorsee of negotiable paper against a prior endorser, and the only question is, whether the maker was a competent witness to prove the agreement alleged in the offer. The cases cited show that he was not competent. Counsel do not pat-ry these cases by showing that Bodey had negotiated the note, and received it back after protest. This is an unimportant circumstance. He was a.s truly a bond fide holder as if he had never parted with the note. It is the duty of an endorser to receive back and pay after protest, the bill he negotiated, and when he does so, the relation between him and prior endorsers is the same as if the protest had happened whilst he held the paper.

The substance of the alleged agreement would be competent evidence, for if the three endorsers agreed to share the loss equally, they ought to be held to contribution, but Lancaster was incompetent to prove the agreement, and therefore the ruling was right.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 10th 1862, by

Woodward, J.

This is an action by an endorsee of negotiable paper against a prior endorser, and the only question is, whether the maker was a competent witness to prove the agreement alleged in the offer. The cases cited show that he was not competent. Counsel do not pat-ry these cases by showing that Bodey had negotiated the note, and received it back after protest. This is an unimportant circumstance. He was a.s truly a bond fide holder as if he had never parted with the note. It is the duty of an endorser to receive back and pay after protest, the bill he negotiated, and when he does so, the relation between him and prior endorsers is the same as if the protest had happened whilst he held the paper.

The substance of the alleged agreement would be competent evidence, for if the three endorsers agreed to share the loss equally, they ought to be held to contribution, but Lancaster was incompetent to prove the agreement, and therefore the ruling was right.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Pa. 476, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saurmans-executors-v-bodey-pa-1862.