Beeber v. Papst

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 31, 1887

Beeber v. Papst, 5 Sadler 208 (Pa. 1887)

7 A. 748

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff claimed to recover on certain premium notes alleged to have been given by the defendants to the Lycoming Fire Insurance Company. The evidence shows that the signatures of the defendants to the notes and to the applications were *212forged. They were signed without any authority from the defendants, and the signatures were not ratified by them.

It follows this judgment is right.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: John A. Beeber, Receiver of the Lycoming Fire Insurance Company, Plff. in Err. v. Lorenz Papst and Christopher Lougendorfer, Trading as Papst & Lougendorfer
Status: Published
Syllabus: Forgery is not susceptible of ratification. The acceptance of a policy of insurance containing a recital that the insured has become a member of the company, by depositing, in addition to 'the cash premium paid, a certain described premium note, subject to assessment by the directors of the company, does not, in an action on the note to recover an assessment, estop the insured to assert that the note was forged. Note. — There can be no ratification of a forged instrument. Shisler v. Vandike', 92 Pa. 447, 37 Am. Rep. 702; McHugh v. Schuylkill County, 67 Pa. 391, 5 Am. Rep. 445. The second trial of the former case is reported in 16 Phila. 4.