Case ID: foster_1/html/0183-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Read C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. EASTERN DISTRICT.
    RITTER & MARKS v. MILLERSTOWN SAVINGS BANK.
    Receiving notes with forged endorsements will not amount to payment of a genuine note, nor extinguish the right of action against the parties liable on said genuine note.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county.
   •Opinion delivered 17 May, 1873, by

Read C. J.

The plaintiffs are partners trading under the name of The Millerstown Savings Bank, and are engaged in the banking business in the borough of Millerstown, in Lehigh county. On the 9th April, 1870, they discounted anote drawn by Erwin Burkhalter and endorsed by the defendants, dated the 8th of the same month, for $r,ooo, payable ninety-days after date, at the Allentown National Bank. At maturity, this note not being paid, was protested for non-payment, of which the endorsers had notice. About seventeen days afterward, said Burkhalter brought to the plaintiffs his promissory note dated 8 July, 1870, payable sixty days after date, fora similar amount, to the order of the defendants, and purporting to' be endorsed by them, and which was given to said plaintiffs as a renewal of the note of 8 April, 1870. On the 9 Sept., 1870, this note became due, and not having been paid, was protested for non-payment, of which the endorsers had legal notice. On the 3 November, 1870, the said Burkhalter brought his promissory note, dated 9 September, 1870, to plaintiffs for a similar amount, payable ninety days after date, drawn by himself and purporting to be regularly endorsed by the defendants, which note was again given to the plaintiffs by the said Burkhalter, as a further renewal of the antecedent and original debt. On the ix December, 1870, this note was protested for non-payment, of which the defendants had legal notice.

On 24 January, 1871, suit was brought by the plaintiffs on the last note and on another note for $800 against the defendants. In an affidavit filed by the defendants the endorsements on the notes were sworn to be forgeries. It was also proved on the trial that the endorsements on the second note for $1,000 were forgeries. Knol.fros. was suffered on the counts in the narr on this last note of $800, and an additional narr filed counting on the first and second notes for $1,000.

The first note discounted by the plaintiffs was a genuine one, endorsed by the defendants, protested for non-payment and due notice of it given to the endorsers, who became bound to pay. The note given in renewal was a forgery and worthless, and the third note given in renewal was also a forgery aixd enabled the forger to get possession of the first note and the second note, and he destroyed both of them. This note', upon which this suit is. brought, was therefore never paid by these spurious and fraudulent and forged notes, which were mere nullities given in renewal of the first note. The learned judge was therefore right in saying to the jury “The receiving of notes whose endorsements were forged, will not amount to a payment of a genuine note, or extinguish the right of action against the defendants or endorsers upon the first note, if the first note, dated April 8th, 1870, drawn by Burkhalter and endorsed by the defendants bears their genuine signature.”

An exact copy of the first note was proved by the notary who protested it for non-payment, and gave legal notice to the defendants, and the record of the notary was also admitted in evidence. This is the real point of the case, and there is nothing in the numerous causes of error assigned by the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.