Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk
This text of 2 Miles 442 (Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Miles 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philadelphia-bank-v-newkirk-pactcomplphilad-1840.