Bank of York v. Webster

Citations

• 242 Pa. 128
• 88 A. 911
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 852

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Second endorser — Defenses—Extension of time for payment — Evidence—Equivocal offers of proof.</p> <p>1. Where in an action on a promissory note against the second endorser thereof, the defense is that the defendant has been discharged by an extension of time given without his consent to the prior endorser, but defendant does not tender proof of an express contract for extension, but only facts from which such a contract is to be inferred, he must, at least unequivocally offer directly to prove the facts.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover the amount of a promissory note from the second endorser thereof it appeared that after the action was brought the plaintiff bank, which discounted the note, had accepted certain payments, on account of the note in suit, including a payment of $50.00 on November 8, 1912. Defendant offered to prove that the first endorser of the note paid this “sum of $50.00 to the bank, which was applied by the bank to the payment of interest at that time accrued on the note, and in addition interest in advance on the note to December 20th following” and also “that the bank applied so much of the payment of $50.00 as was necessary to pay in advance the interest on the note in question then due and to December 20th' following.” It appeared that such payment was insufficient to pay the interest accrued upon the date when the payment was made. The offers were overruled. Held, no error.</p>