Sieger v. Second N. Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 17, 1890

Sieger v. Second N. Bank, 132 Pa. 307 (Pa. 1890)

19 A. 217; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 813

Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name: F. G. SIEGER v. SECOND N. BANK
Cited By: 4 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Where one, as indorser, procures the note of another to be discounted by a bank for his credit, and at the time the discount is effected makes a distinct promise to the bank to pay the note at maturity, his liability is absolute, not conditional, and protest and notice of non-payment are unnecessary. 2. The maker of a note having a deposit at a bank where the note has been discounted for an indorser, the note itself, however, being payable at another bank, the indorser is not relieved from liability by the failure of the bank to apply the maker’s deposit to the payment of the note at its maturity.