Williams v. Holmes , 1 Pennyp. 441 ( 1881 )

Per Curiam :

That the bank had an unquestionable right of action against the maker cannot be disputed. Coy in point of fact purchased the note, as the memorandum upon it by the cashier shows. Why then, especially as the note was never negotiable, did not Coy stand in the shoes of the bank? The maker had no more equity against Coy than against the bank. In presenting the note to the bank he was estopped from contesting the consideration.

Judgment affirmed.