Jones v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 24, 1899

Jones v. Roberts, 191 Pa. 152 (Pa. 1899)

43 A. 123; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 794

Collum, Dean, Fell, Green, Mitchell

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

There was evidence enough in the testimony of the plaintiff to carry the case to the jury on the question of waiver of notice oí protest. The court correctly left this question to the jury and they found in favor of the plaintiff. We do not see how they could have found otherwise. The case of Reiff v. McMiller, 45 Legal Int. 26, cited by appellant, has no application. It does not raise the question at issue here.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: R. Barclay Jones v. F. K. Roberts
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: Promissory notes—Waiver of protest—Indorser. In an action against an indorser oí a promissory note the case is for the jury on the question of waiver of notice of protest where the plaintiff testifies that shortly before the note became due defendant came to his place of business and stated that he had been unfortunate- in business; that it •would be impossible for him to pay the note, and that it would be useless for plaintiff to put the note in bank to have it protested.