First National Bank v. Singer
First National Bank at Pittsburgh v. Singer Et Al., Appellants
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, Appellants executed a note February 3, 1932. Thereafter it was renewed fourteen times before an action was instituted to recover the amount thereof, with interest. At the trial in the court below, appellants offered to *208 prove a fraudulent promise, failure of consideration and other defenses which, as appellants state, “were made prior to the signing and delivery of the first note,” on February 3,1932. The court below held, “Where the defendants in an action such as this have had knowledge of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration when renewing the note, or notes, upon which suit is brought they are estopped by their own conduct from defending on the ground of alleged fraud or partial or total failure of consideration:
Dunn v. Columbia, Nat. Bank, 204 Pa. 53 ;
Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35 ;
First Nat. Bank of Pgh. v. Dowling, 286 Pa. 483 ;
Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, 301 Pa. 45 .” See also Ebensburg Trust Co. v. Pike, 296 Pa. 462 . The defense of set-off is disposed of by Warren Nat. Bank v. Jamieson, supra.
Judgments affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.