First National Bank v. Delone

Citations

• 254 Pa. 409
• 98 A. 1042
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 744

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Liability of endorser — Notice of dishonor— Protest — Mail notice — Act of May 16,1901, P. L. 194 — Defenses— Extension of time — Discharge—Trials—Practice, G. P. — After-discovered evidence — New trials — Act of May 14,1874, P• L. 157.</p> <p>1. Under Section 105 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of May 16,1901, P. L. 194, providing that “where notice of dishonor is duly-addressed and deposited in the post office, the sender is deemed to have given due notice, notwithstanding any miscarriage in the mails,” due notice is deemed to have been given when the notice is properly addressed and deposited in the mails whether it has been received or not.</p> <p>2. The certificate of a notary public, made admissible in evidence by the Act of December'14, 1854, P. L. (1855), 724, for the purpose of showing his “official act, protests and attestations,” in relation to the dishonor of bills and notes and notice thereof to endorsers, is prima facie evidence of the allegations set forth in it, and if there is nothing in contradiction it is conclusive of what it contains.</p> <p>3. Where in an action against the endorser of a promissory note a notary public produced his certificate at the trial showing demand and refusal, and notice thereof to defendant, and in addition testified that he had given notice to the defendant by letter duly stamped and addressed and mailed at a certain time and place, the court properly refused defendant’s offer to show that he personally had not received the notice.</p> <p>4. In such case there was no merit in defendant’s contention that the court erred in charging, in effect, that the notary’s statements must he taken as a verity, where there was no real attempt to impeach either the notary’s certificate or oral testimony, especially where the court stated that the credibility of witnesses was for the jury and no complaint was made by defendant’s counsel at the close of the charge.</p> <p>5. In such case the court below did not