The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1871-04-25
Qbe Iintes, Ne,p Bloonrfelo, 1Da.


case which is reported in the Legal Gazette
of the 18th inst, will be of interest to many
of our readers: A stranger met Neal
Mccoy of Juniata county, and brought him
into hotel of one William Young, of
Mifflintown, where they each took drink
and then sat down, and the stranger-as
Young testined-tried to sell Mccoy the
right to patent hay-fork. After sitting
some time, Mccoy wanted more liquor,
which was refused him, and he and the
stranger then went out together. About
this time (how, where, or when was not
proved, and Mccoy stated that he had no
recollection of the transaction,) McCoy's
signature to promisory note for 1925 was
procured, The note was payable to j. j.
Wilhelm 81 Co., or bearer, on the 1st day
of July, $40, at the Juniata Valley bank,
at Mifflntown, with use. Suit was brought
against Mccoy upon this note in the COM
mon pleas of Juniata county by the State
Bank. Upon The trial Henry A. Sturgeon,
Esq, cashier of the bank, was called as a
witness by the plaintiff and testified that on
the Goth of June, 1870, J. J. Wilhelm &
Co., called upon him to sell q number of
this same kind Of notes, that he thereupon
consulted two or three of the directors of
the bank, and they agreed to purchase the
lot at the price Mr.. Wilhelm asked, which
was 90 cts on the dollar, and they purchased
the lot offered, including the note of defen-
L. 81, M, ~ l,n,
stated that Wilhelm said the notes were
given for patent hay-forks f; that the bank
holds the note of one Meyer as guaranty
for the payment of these notes, in case they
are not paid that Meyers guaranty COW
cred only the amount paid by the bank for
the notes and that he, Mr.. Sturgeon,
would not have purchased the notes without
guarantee. The plaintiffs counsel. con-
tended that the circumstances under which
these notes were purchased, as detailed by
Mr.. Sturgeon, could not in law defeat q
recovery. Judge Graham submitted the
question of fraud to the jury, resewing the
question whether upon all the evidence, the
plaintiff was entitled to recover, to be dis
posed Of on % rule to show cause why judg-
ment should not be entered for the plaintiff
non obst0Rt6 gerCdict0. Upon the argument
of the reserved question, Judge Graham,
in delivering his opinion, cited the cases
in point and deduced therefrom the rule
that to preclude defence to a note fraudu-
lently obtained, it must have been taken
without notice, either actual or construc-
tive. 1t must have been in the usual course
of business, and not only valuable but a
full consideration paid for it. "None of
the circumstances stated, says Judge Gra-
ham, exist in this case. The bank had
constructive notice-circumstance of sus-
picion attended the transaction, sufficient
to put person of ordinary prudence and
caution upon inquiry. Mr.. Sturgeon was
suspicious, and eminently prudent and
cautious for he purchased tho note at fifty
per cent. discount, and then took an indem-
nifty from the holder for the amount paid.
Nor was this transaction in the
usual course of business, for cannot sup
pose it is the usual cour sc of business with
the State Bank or any other bank doing
business under q charter from the State, to
purchase paper upon person unknown
without an endorser, at fifty per cent. dis
count, and take an indemnity against loss
should the paper prove worthless. Again,
the third requisite of the sale is wanting,
to wit that the paper be purchased for a
full and valuable consideration"
His honor also discussed the guaert
whether bank chartered under State law
can legally purchase notes at exorbitant
and usurious rates. The rule was discharg-
ed.
IL. MI. Ill l. L. L. =