Triffin v. Dillabough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
716 A.2d 605 (1998)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Stacey Dillabough and Robert Lynn (defendants) presented several stolen money orders for payment at Chuckie Enterprises, Inc. (Chuckie’s), in Pennsylvania. The money orders were printed by American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (American Express) (defendant) and contained the pre-printed signature of American Express’s chairman. However, the money orders were blank as to the amount, sender, payee, and date. The backs of the money orders stated that the amount would not be paid if the orders had been altered or stolen or if an endorsement was missing or forged. Chuckie’s paid the face amounts of the money orders to Dillabough and Lynn. American Express refused to pay Chuckie’s for the money orders. Chuckie’s sold and assigned all of its rights and interest in the money orders to Robert Triffin (plaintiff). Triffin sued Dillabough, Lynn, and American Express. The trial court entered default judgments against Dillabough and Lynn. The trial court also held that the money orders were not negotiable instruments and entered judgment for American Express. The superior court reversed with respect to American Express, holding that the money orders were negotiable instruments and that Triffin had status as a holder in due course and could recover the face amounts of the money orders. American Express appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
Dissent (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
