Citation Numbers: 84 Pa. Super. 132, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 232
Judges: OPINION BY LINN, J., November 17, 1924:
Filed Date: 10/22/1924
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Argued October 22, 1924.
When this case was here before on appeal from judgment entered on the pleadings pursuant to section 20 of the Practice Act, we decided that plaintiff should have an opportunity, if the facts justified it, of amending the statement of claim, which the court below had held defective in not stating a cause of action; we accordingly reversed: see
Plaintiff's receipt of the check and the genuineness of the treasurer's endorsement being conceded, its negotiation might be completed by delivery, pursuant to the statute, as we said in our former opinion. There is nothing to the contrary in the by-law prescribing the treasurer's duties. Actual notice to defendant of alleged abuse of authority by plaintiff's treasurer was neither averred in the statement of claim nor shown in the evidence. It was suggested at the argument that some significance be attached to the word "cashed," which was stamped on the check; there is nothing in the record to show how that could constitute notice of alleged abuse of the treasurer's authority. As the case is destitute of evidence to support the judgment, we cannot sustain it.
Judgment reversed and here entered for defendant. *Page 135