Mattern v. Decker

Citations

• 59 Pa. Super. 186
• 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>Principal and surety — Judgment note — Extension of time — Discharge of surety — Principal and agent — Banks and hanking.</p> <p>1. A judgment entered against a surety on a judgment note will be opened, where it appears that when the note was about to become due, notice of that fact was given to both principal and surety, that the latter gave verbal instructions to the payee to proceed and collect the note from the principal, that instead of doing this the payee without the knowledge or consent of the surety, on five different occasions, extended the time of payment at the instance of the principal alone, who on each occasion paid in advance a valuable consideration for such extension, and that by reason of these extensions the note was carried along for about fifteen months after it had become due according to its terms.</p> <p>2. In such a case where it appears that the note in question was given to a private bank owned by a single person, the business of which was conducted by another known as the cashier, the owner of the bank cannot claim that the cashier was without authority to grant the extension, where it appears that the cashier was the sole agent and representative of the owner in all matters relating to the business of the bank, that he made the loan in question on his own judgment, and that no part of the remuneration which the bank received for the several extensions had ever been returned or offered to be returned.</p>