Chestnut Street National Bank v. Ellis

Citations

• 161 Pa. 241
• 28 A. 1082
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 676

Syllabus

<p>Practice — Pleading—Statement—Affidavit of defence — Act of 1887.</p> <p>To entitle plaintiff to judgment for want of an affidavit of defence, or for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, the statement of his demand under the act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271, must set forth in clear and concise terms such averments of fact as, if not controverted, would entitle *him to a verdict for the amount of his claim.</p> <p>Promissory notes — Action against indorser — Pleading.</p> <p>In an action by an indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note the statement must aver that the note, on becoming due, was duly presented to the maker, and that he refused to pay, of which the defendant had notice.</p> <p>In such a ease a mere reference to the costs of protest, from which it might be inferred that the note was protested for nonpayment, is insufficient to sustain the action.</p> <p>Affidavit of defence — Promissory note.</p> <p>In an action against an indorser of a promissory note, an affidavit of defence is sufficient which avers that no consideration was paid either by the maker of the note, or by the plaintiff; that the latter paid nothing either for or on account of said note to any one, but was a mere transferee, and holds the note merely for collection for account of the maker, who is indebted to defendant “in large sums of money much in excess of the amount of said note.”</p>