Lebanon National Bank v. Long

Citations

• 220 Pa. 556
• 69 A. 1033
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 815

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Renewal note — Novation—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action by a bank against one of two makers of a promissory note, the makers of the note testified in substance that they took to the bank a renewal note of the note in suit, handed it to the teller, saying, in substance, there is a renewal, and immediately left without having ascertained whether it was satisfactory to the bank, and without demanding the old note. The teller testified that when the note was handed to him he informed the makers that he would present it to the proper officer of the bank, who was then absent, and see whether it was satisfactory to have the loan renewed. He did so and was informed by the proper officer of the bank that it was not satisfactory to renew the loan and that the new note was not accepted by the bank, and the old note was never marked satisfied nor surrendered, but had always been held by the bank as security for the loan. Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a contract of renewal.</p> <p>Promissory notes — Accommodation of maker — Consideration—Parol evidence.</p> <p>In an action by a bank against one of two brothers who were joint makers of a promissory note, the defendant cannot be relieved from liability on the note by parol evidence to the effect that he signed the note as an accommodation to his brother with the understanding that the signing of his name was a mere matter of form to comply with the provisions of the national banking laws and that he would not subject himself to any liability by signing it, and that the' cashier of the bank had made these representations to the brother at the time the loan was made and afterwards said the same thing to defendant.</p>