Case Name: Showell, Fryer & Company v. Barr, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1913-02-03
Citations: 239 Pa. 287
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 141
Parties: Showell, Fryer & Company v. Barr, Appellant.
Judges: Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 239
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Showell, Fryer & Company v. Barr, Appellant.
Negotiable instruments — Promissory notes — Defenses—Negotiation after maturity — Fraud.
In an action to recover on certain promissory notes negotiated after maturity to the plaintiff, where it appeared that every defense available against the payee was admitted and submitted to the jury with full and accurate instructions, a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was sustained on appeal.
Argued January 10, 1913.
Appeal, No. 141, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 2452, on verdict for plaintiff in case of E. B. Showell, F. Dewees Fryer and George W. Kerchner, partners, trading as Showell, Fryer & Company, v. J. H. C. Barr.
Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Assumpsit on promissory notes. Before Bregy, J.
From the record it appeared that defendant alleged that the notes were negotiated to plaintiff after maturity and were given in consequence of certain fraudulent representations. The evidence as to these representations was admitted and the case submitted to the jury. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of* plaintiff for $2,312, upon which judgment was subsequently entered. Defendant appealed
Errors assigned were various instructions to the jury and the refusal of binding instructions for the defendant.
C. Oscar Beasley, for appellant.
Bernard F. Owens, with him Joseph Levy, for appellee.
February 3, 1913:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This action was on a promissory note given in payment for the stock of a corporation. The defendant's contention at the trial, that there could be.no recovery on the note because it was negotiated after maturity calls for no discussion. Every defense available against the payee was admitted and submitted to the jury with full and accurate instructions.
The judgment is affirmed.