Bay v. Freazer

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Bay v. Freazer

1 S.C.L. 66

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided June 12, 1789·Published

Opinion

The Court

were of opinion, that under the second count in the declaration, and the authorities and reasons urged in support of it, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Every indorsement, they said, was a new undertaking, and gave negotiability when payable to order, and for value received, although the paper itself, on which the indorsement was made, was not originally negotiable. That this bill was sufficiently certain by reference, to bring it within the law of merchants. As to the first and last counts in the declaration, they expressly declared, that they did not mean to give any opinion on them, but would reserve themselves upon those points, until a case should occur where it would he necessary.

The Jury found a verdict agreeable to the opinion of the cóurt, but did not allow interest.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court

were of opinion, that under the second count in the declaration, and the authorities and reasons urged in support of it, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Every indorsement, they said, was a new undertaking, and gave negotiability when payable to order, and for value received, although the paper itself, on which the indorsement was made, was not originally negotiable. That this bill was sufficiently certain by reference, to bring it within the law of merchants. As to the first and last counts in the declaration, they expressly declared, that they did not mean to give any opinion on them, but would reserve themselves upon those points, until a case should occur where it would he necessary.

The Jury found a verdict agreeable to the opinion of the cóurt, but did not allow interest.

Bay v. Freazer, 1 S.C.L. 66 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1789).

Pincite

1 S.C.L. 66 (Bay v. Freazer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.