TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Homewood Peoples Bank v. McCutcheon

Homewood Peoples Bank v. McCutcheon, 109 A. 873 (Pa. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1920
Docket
Nos. , No. 94
Judges
Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Simpson, Walling
Citations
109 A. 873266 Pa. 1161920 Pa. LEXIS 515
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Promissory notes — Accommodation note — Statute of limitations —Payments after statute has run — Accommodated party — Agency. Where a promissory note is made for the accommodation of another person, and such person, after the statute has run against the note, makes payments thereon, but not as the agent of the maker, and without the latter having done anything to acknowledge his continued liability, such payments are insufficient to toll the statute.
Summary
Appeal, No. 94, Oct. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1914, No. 1500, on verdict for defendant in case of Homewood Peoples Bank v. W. A. McCutcheon. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Shaper, P. J. The note in question was made by W. A. McCutcheon to the order of himself, and endorsed over to the plaintiff bank. The note was really made for the accommodation of Joseph R. Pauli, whose name, however did not appear on it, in any way. Further facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was in refusing plaintiff’s motion for judgment n. o. v.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

The note upon which this action was brought, dated June 12, 1903, was made by the appellee for the accommodation of Joseph R. Pauli, who at the time was president of the plaintiff bank. After the statute had run against the obligation, Pauli made payments on it, but not as agent of the appellee, and the latter did nothing acknowledging his continued liability. As to him the payments made by Pauli were insufficient to toll the statute: Coleman v. Fobes, 22 Pa. 156 ; Clark v. Burn et al., 86 Pa. 502 ; Wesner v. Stein and Greenawalt, 97 Pa. 322 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1920: 11929: 11939: 11984: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dick v. Daylight Garage, Inc.6 A.2d 823 (Pa. 1939)
  2. Fowler v. Barlow Et Ux.146 A. 77 (Vt. 1929)
  3. White v. Pittsburgh Vein Coal Co.109 A. 873 (Pa. 1920)
  4. Cumana Investments S.A. v. Fluor Corp.593 F. Supp. 310 (D. Del. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Cumana Investments S.A. v. Fluor Corp.593 F. Supp. 310 (D. Del. 1984)
  2. Dick v. Daylight Garage, Inc.6 A.2d 823 (Pa. 1939)
  3. Fowler v. Barlow Et Ux.146 A. 77 (Vt. 1929)
  4. White v. Pittsburgh Vein Coal Co.109 A. 873 (Pa. 1920)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Wesner v. Stein & Greenawalt, 97 Pa. 322 (1881) 15
Clark v. Burn, 86 Pa. 502 (1878) 4
Coleman v. Fobes, 22 Pa. 156 (1853) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list