Sieger v. Second N. Bank

19 A. 217, 132 Pa. 307, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 813
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 17, 1890·No. No. 407·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We find no error in this record. The defendant below proved, and the jury have found, a distinct and absolute promise by the plaintiff, at the time the note in controversy was discounted by the bank, to pay it at maturity. This dispensed with notice of demand and refusal to pay. His liability, instead of being conditional as an indorser, thus became absolute, and notice and protest were unnecessary. 'Nor do we see error in the rejection of the offer of evidence referred to in the first assignment. The note was not made payable at the defendant bank, and could not therefore he considered a check or draft of the maker of the note against his deposit there.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Sieger v. Second N. Bank, 19 A. 217, 132 Pa. 307, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 813 (Pa. 1890).

19 A. 217 (Sieger v. Second N. Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Nat. Bk. of Granville v. Delone
167 A. 286 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Franklin Savings & Trust Co. v. Clark
129 A. 56 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Worley v. Johnson
60 Fla. 294 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1910)
Trager v. Louisiana Equitable Life Insurance
31 La. 235 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1879)