Williams v. Caples

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Williams v. Caples

12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 451, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 541

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 1940

DocketAppeal, 35

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.2d 566 (Williams v. Caples) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Caples, 12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 451, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 541 (Pa. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order opening a judgment which had been confessed on a note for $3,500, dated August 14, 1931, maturing one day after date. The proposed defense is that the note was paid by being included in subsequent obligations. Early in 1932, plaintiff’s decedent acquired additional notes of defendant amounting to $49,500 and took a bond and mortgage *452 for the sum of both debts, $53,000, with interest at 4%. In September, 1934, the debt was reduced to $52,200 and a new bond and mortgage for that amount payable at the end of 10 years, without interest, were executed and delivered and the $53,000 bond and mortgage were returned to the makers. Other evidence would also support defendants’ contention that the new obligation was substituted for the two prior obligations and that the return of the $53,000 mortgage, in the circumstances, was sufficient to go to a jury on the question of payment: see Citizens Bank of Wind Gap v. Lipschitz, 296 Pa. 291, 294, 296, 145 A. 831.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order opening a judgment which had been confessed on a note for $3,500, dated August 14, 1931, maturing one day after date. The proposed defense is that the note was paid by being included in subsequent obligations. Early in 1932, plaintiff’s decedent acquired additional notes of defendant amounting to $49,500 and took a bond and mortgage *452 for the sum of both debts, $53,000, with interest at 4%. In September, 1934, the debt was reduced to $52,200 and a new bond and mortgage for that amount payable at the end of 10 years, without interest, were executed and delivered and the $53,000 bond and mortgage were returned to the makers. Other evidence would also support defendants’ contention that the new obligation was substituted for the two prior obligations and that the return of the $53,000 mortgage, in the circumstances, was sufficient to go to a jury on the question of payment: see Citizens Bank of Wind Gap v. Lipschitz, 296 Pa. 291, 294, 296, 145 A. 831.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.2d 566, 338 Pa. 451, 1940 Pa. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-caples-pa-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack