History
  • No items yet
midpage
Sieger v. Second N. Bank
132 Pa. 307
Pa.
1890
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

We find no error in this record. The defendant below proved, and the jury have found, a distinct and absolute promise by the plaintiff, at the time the note in controversy was discounted by the bank, to pay it at maturity. This dispensed with notice of demand and refusal to pay. His liability, instead of being conditional as an indorser, thus became absolute, and notice and protest were unnecessary. 'Nor do we see error in the rejection of the offer of evidence referred to in the first assignment. The note was not made payable at the defendant bank, and could not therefore he considered a check or draft of the maker of the note against his deposit there.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Sieger v. Second N. Bank
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Feb 17, 1890
Citation: 132 Pa. 307
Docket Number: No. 407
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.