Case Name: Bank of North America v. Wycoff
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1796-03
Citations: 4 Dall. 130
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of North America v. Wycoff.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
Bank of North America v. Wycoff.
Notice of nonpayment.— Witness.
The indorser of a promissory note must receive notice, within a reasonable time, of the non-payment of the note by the maker.
An executor, who is entitled to a share in the residuum of his testator’s estate, which is interested in the suit, is not a competent witness to prove such notice, although the objection appear on his cross-examination.
Case, by the indorsee against the payee and indorser of a promissory note, made by Joseph Harrison.
The question was, whether the defendant had received notice within a reasonable time, of the non-payment of the note by the maker? Jacob Lawerswyler, the runner of the bank, was called as a witness, to prove the notice ; but after a long examination in chief, he stated on Ms cross-examination, “that he was the executor of Jacob Winney, a stockholder in the bank of North America; and was entitled to a share in the residuum of the testator’s estate.”
*The defendant’s counsel then objected to the competency of the witness, on account of his Mterest in the bank. They insisted, that although this appeared after a cross-examination, it was sufficient for the rejection of his evidence altogether; and that, consequently, as there was no proof of notice, independent of his evidence, the plaintiff must be non-suited.
s. c. 2 Yeates 39.

Opinion:
The Court concurring, clearly and explicitly, in the opinion of the defendant's counsel,
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.