Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk
2 Miles 442
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County·Decided December 19, 1840·Published·Cited by 8 cases
Opinion
One objection is stated in the affidavit of defence, which is a sufficient reason why judgment should be refused. The plaintiffs sue on this as a promissory note. Now to constitute a promissory note, the instrument on its face must be for the payment of a sum certain, not susceptible of contingent or indefinite additions, nor subject to indefinite w contingent deductions. In this instance, the “ current rate of exchange to be added,” is clearly indefinite. See 2 Stark. 375; 4 Ba. & Ad. 619; 4 B. Moore 471.
Rule discharged.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk, 2 Miles 442 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1840).
2 Miles 442 (Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chandler v. Calvert
87 Mo. App. 368 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Blue Star S. S. Co. v. Keyser
81 F. 507 (N.D. Florida, 1897)
Nicely v. Commercial Bank
44 N.E. 572 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Culbertson v. Nelson
27 L.R.A. 222 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Flagg v. School District, No. 70
25 L.R.A. 363 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Hastings v. Thompson
21 L.R.A. 178 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1893)
Fitzharris v. Leggatt
10 Mo. App. 527 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)
Bradley v. Lill
3 F. Cas. 1155 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1861)