Bitner v. Diehl

Citations

• 61 Pa. Super. 483
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 356

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Duress—Purely—Notice 'of defective title— Evidence.</p> <p>The general rule is that the defense of duress in an action on a promissory note is open only to the party upon whom the duress has been imposed; but a third party who has become surety for the payment of the claim may avail himself of such defense if it is shown that he signed the obligation without knowledge of the duress. . •</p> <p>^Promissory notes — Duress—Endorsee—Notice of defective title —Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker, where the defendant sets up as a defense duress exerted upon him by the payee in securing the note, and there is no evidence that the endorsee who had purchased the note for a valuable consideration before maturity had knowledge of the duress, and he denies on the stand that he had any such knowledge, and the payee when called by the plaintiff as a witness, states under cross-examination by the defendant that he did not inform the plaintiff of the duress when he sold the note to him, it is error for the trial judge to submit the case to the jury, and to permit a judgment on a verdict for the defendant to stand. The appellate court in reversing such a judgment cannot however enter judgment for the plaintiff, if the record does not show a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. All that can be done is to reverse the judgment and award a venire facias de novo.</p> <p>In such a case the fact that the plaintiff purchased the note at a very large discount is not sufficient, of itself, to sustain an inference that he knew that there was any infirmity in the note, or in the payee’s title.</p>