West Phila. N. Bank v. Field

Citations

• 143 Pa. 473
• 22 A. 829
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 937

Syllabus

<p>1. The surrender to an indorser of a note having the defendant’s genuine signature thereto as maker, on the receipt of a note with the signature of another maker forged thereto, but believed to be genuine, will not amount to a payment of the first note, or extinguish the indorsee’s right of action against the maker thereof.</p> <p>(a) In assumpsit against the defendant as the maker of a negotiable note, the plaintiff bank proved that it had discounted the note for the payee and indorser thereof, to whom on maturity it had delivered the note, on receipt of a new note for a like amount but with the name of another maker thereto, which was a forgery:</p> <p>2. The plaintiff having shown, further, that the indorser to whom the note was surrendered in exchange for the note with the name of the maker forged, had fled the country on account of said forgery and others, sufficient ground was laid to excuse the non-production of the note, and to authorize secondary evidence of its contents,</p> <p>3. Showing, further, that, both before and after the note in suit was surrendered to the indorser, the defendant when spoken to concerning the note, and his signature thereto, replied that the note was “ all right ” the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that defendant’s signature to the note .was genuine.</p> <p>4. The note having been made for the accommodation of the payee and indorser, the defendant was entitled to protection against the possibility of the note being found thereafter in the hands of an innocent holder for value. This protection, however, the court could give by restraining execution till such indemnity should be given.</p>