Dominion Trust Co. v. Hildner

Citations

• 243 Pa. 253
• 90 A. 69
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 610

Syllabus

<p>Negotiable instruments — Promissory notes —* Endorsement in blank — Banks and banking — Bona fide purchaser — Agency — Agent’s knowledge of equities.</p> <p>1. The words “on demand” in a note do not make the demand a condition precedent to a right of action, but import that the debt is due and demandable, or at least that the commencement of a suit therefor is a sufficient demand.</p> <p>2. To endorse a note in blank is equivalent to making it payable to hearer and thereafter the note is negotiable by delivery.</p> <p>3. A bank officer who offers to his hank a note for discount is to be regarded in that transaction as a stranger and the bank is not chargeable with the officer’s knowledge of fraud or want of consideration for the note, acquired in transactions not connected with his duties as a hank official.</p> <p>4. In an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, made, and endorsed in blank, by the defendant, the affidavit of defense alleged that the note was purchased from a third person, who was at the time of purchase president of plaintifE company and who had knowledge of facts which would constitute a good defense to the note. It appeared that plaintiff’s president had not acquired this knowledge while acting in any way for the plaintifE but while acting for himself or for another concern in a different transaction. The court entered judgment for plaintifE for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Held, no error.</p>