Case ID: pen-w_3/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MORGAN and others against THE FARMERS’ BANK OF READING.
    IN ERROR.
    What is a good statement under the act of Assembly against the drawer and endorsers of a note.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Berks county. It was an action of debt, by the defendant in error, the Farmers’ Bank of ■Reading, against James Morgan, David Morgan and Jacob R. Bright, the plaintiffs in error, in which the plaintiff filed the following statement, upon the sufficiency ol which the question'was made here after judgment for the plaintiffbelow.
    “The above stated action is founded on a promissory note, dated the 7th of September, 1829, drawn by the aforesaid James Morgan, for the sum of one thousand dollars, and made payable to the said David and Jacob Bright or order, at the Farmers'1 Bank of Reading, without defalcation, sixty days after the date aforesaid, which said David Morgan and Jacob R. Bright, by their endorsement on the said note, transferred the same to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff avers that the whole amount of the said note together with the interest thereon is due the plaintiff.”
    JNO. SPAYD, P. Q.
    
      Hopkins for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Heister and Baird for the defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

It would not be easy to devise a more neat, perspicuous and complete form of statement, than the one which is the subject of this writ of error; and it is not a little strange that exceptions of this stamp, should be repeated after the decision in Boyd v. Gordon, 6 Serg. &r Rawle, 53. Reed v. Pedan, S Serg. &r Rawle, 265. Bucle v. Nicholas, id. 316. Cook v. Gilbert, id. 567, and Bailey v. Bailey, 14 Serg. &? Rawle, 195. We are not aware that any thing in the assignment of error calls for further remark.

Judgment affirmed.