The Bloomfield times. [volume] (New Bloomfield, Pa.) 1867-187?, 1873-03-04
A Case Settled.

A Case Settled.
The following decision will be found of
interest to many of our readers and more
particularly to those in the county who
had dealing with the same set of fel-
lows, to whom the note in question was
given.
Slate Bank of Harrisburg, Pa, VS.. John
Shreck-error to the court of common
pleas of Union county. This was an ac-
tion brought in the court of common pleas
of Union county by the State bank against
John Shreck on the following note:
WHITE DEER TOWNSHIP,
$400 90 March 25, 1870
On or before the first day of July, 1870,
for value received, the subscriber of New
Columbia p. o., White Deer township,
Union county, State of Pennsylvania,
promise to pay, to j. j. Wilhelm ~ Co., or
bearer, four hundred dollars, without de-
falcation, at First National bank of Lewis
burg, with use. JoNN SHREoK.
[Eudorsedl II. A. STURGEON, Cashier.
On the trial in the court below before
Judge Elwell, it having been proved that
the note in suit was purchased by the bank
before maturity for fifty cents ON the dol
lar, without any agreement or condition as
to its title, the defendant then offered to
prove that the note was procured by
fraud upon him, that he was led to believe
by the payee that the paper he signed was
an agreement, constituting him an agent
for the sale of hay forks, and not note
that he never received any value of it that
the plaintiff was an incorporated bank, and
discounting the note at so per cent, of its
face, could not and did not acquire any
title to it, and is not bona fide holder for
value.
On objection by the plaintiff the court re-
jected the evidence assigning the following
reasons:
/. BY the second section of the act of
incorporation, this bank is expressly au-
thorized to purchase negotiable promissory
notes. The act of making such purchase
is therefore in the usual course of business.
2. The sale and delivery of the note by
the payee Of the bank, and the payment
Of the money therefore by the bank, was a
completely executed contract, by which the
title to the note passed. The maker was
no party to that contract, and is in no sit
uation to raise any question as to the
amount paid.
3. The purchase of the note for half it's
par value does. not tend to prove that the
bank is not a bona fide holder: In the
absence of other evidence proving notice
to the plaintiff of the fraud alleged, testi-
mony of it's existence is not admissible.
a. am of the opinion that as the State
bank is not bank of issue, and has au-
thority to receive deposits, paying therefor
such rate Of interest as may be agreed upon
with depositors, and to transact its finan-
cial business as natural person, and hav-
ing express authority to purchase negotia-
BILE notes, its purchase in this instance was
not violation of its charter.
The defendant then rested, and the
court directed verdict for the plaintiff.
On writ Of error to the Supreme Court,
assigning the rejection of the evidence Of
fered by the defendant, and directing a
verdict for the plaintiff, as errors, the Su-
preme Court after full argument sustained
all the rulings Of Judge Ewell in the court
below, and the judgment was affirmed, pei
curiam, without filling an opinion.