Martz v. W. H. Wilcox Co.

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 169
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 172

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Affidavit of defense — Averments as to bona fide holder — Parol agreement — Fraud.</p> <p>1. In an action on a promissory note, an affidavit of defense which sets forth that the plaintiff is not a bona fide holder for value without notice, and that he is not the owner of the note but holds it for the purpose of bringing suit, is sufficient to prevent judgment, if the affidavit otherwise sets forth a defense.</p> <p>2. A contemporaneous parol agreement made at the time a promissory note was given providing that the note should be held merely as a collateral security for a particular purpose will be sufficient to prevent the collection of the note, if it appears that the contemporaneous agreement was violated.</p> <p>3. Where the terms of an affidavit of defense indicate beyond question that the note or contract in suit was the only result that could be expected from the agreement had between the parties immediately before the note or contract was signed, it need not be specifically averred in the affidavit of defense that the defendant relied upon and was induced to sign the note by reason of the agreement.</p> <p>4. Where a promissory note is given under an agreement to be used for a certain purpose, and an attempt has been made to use it differently from the use which is promised would be made of it, this attempted use is a fraud upon the maker of the note, and an affidavit of defense need not aver that the agreement under which the note was given was omitted from the note through fraud, accident or mistake.</p>