Mack v. Baker

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Mack v. Baker

16 F. Cas. 155, 5 Reporter, 492, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1926

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F. Cas. 155 (Mack v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mack v. Baker, 16 F. Cas. 155, 5 Reporter, 492, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1926 (circtedpa 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

CADWALADER, District Judge.

After consideration I do not doubt the correctness of the decision of the supreme court of the state in Royer v. Bank, supra. There is an extra-judicial remark of Story, J., in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 15, in which he holds that the taking of a note, simply as collateral security, is a sufficient consideration and gives the purchaser a better title than the indorser had; but this is no part of the real decision, which is that, where the note is taken in payment, the consi deration is sufficient. Where time or indulgence is given, or something done to change the relation of the parties to the original consideration, the ease is different, but here the defence is sufficient according to Royer v. Bank. The doubt I had of the case was as to the renewal of the note,— whether that was not equivalent to giving time. It is so generally, unless the ordinary effect is negatived by peculiar circumstances. Here the time given was on the collateral and not on the original debt, and could not suspend the right of action, as has been often decided. It is unnecessary to consider the supplemental affidavit. Rule discharged.

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

CADWALADER, District Judge.

After consideration I do not doubt the correctness of the decision of the supreme court of the state in Royer v. Bank, supra. There is an extra-judicial remark of Story, J., in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 15, in which he holds that the taking of a note, simply as collateral security, is a sufficient consideration and gives the purchaser a better title than the indorser had; but this is no part of the real decision, which is that, where the note is taken in payment, the consi deration is sufficient. Where time or indulgence is given, or something done to change the relation of the parties to the original consideration, the ease is different, but here the defence is sufficient according to Royer v. Bank. The doubt I had of the case was as to the renewal of the note,— whether that was not equivalent to giving time. It is so generally, unless the ordinary effect is negatived by peculiar circumstances. Here the time given was on the collateral and not on the original debt, and could not suspend the right of action, as has been often decided. It is unnecessary to consider the supplemental affidavit. Rule discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 155, 5 Reporter, 492, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-baker-circtedpa-1878.