McKelvy v. Berry

Citations

• 21 Pa. Super. 276
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 350

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Action by indorsee — Defense.</p> <p>In an action by an indorsee of a promissory note against the maker where there is no evidence that the maker had any defense against the payee, it is proper for the court to refuse to charge as follows: “The note in suit, payable on demand, without interest, was due forthwith and an action thereon by the payee against the makers might have been brought and maintained the day after its date.”</p> <p>In such a case it is also proper to refuse to charge as follows : “ The note having been transferred six days after its date was overdue and dishonored, and the indorsee took it subject to any defense which the makers or either of them had at or before the time of the transfer of it.”</p> <p>The holder of a joint promissory note payable on demand is not required to make demand and proceed to collect the note, unless requested so to do by one of the makers alleging himself to be a surety, if the holder brings suit within the period required by the statute of limitations.</p> <p>In an action by a second indorsee on a promissory note given to a bank where the note itself shows that the bank indorsed the note to the order of the first indorsee, and the latter indorsed it to the plaintiff, evidence is immaterial, to the effect that the first indorsee paid the amount of the note to the bank, that at the time he was an employee and a boarder in the family of one of the joint makers, and that he knew that the defendant had signed the note as surety for the other joint maker.</p>