Weld v. Barker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 48, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, William F. Weld, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 1251, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover price of certain stocks and bonds.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 48, Jan. T., 1893, by plaintiff, William F. Weld, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 1251, discharging rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit to recover price of certain stocks and bonds. From the record it appeared that on April 21, 1890, plaintiff purchased from defendants, Barker Bro. & Co., certain stocks and bonds under an agreement in writing which contained the following clause:. “ 4. The bonds to be held for one year and not to be sold at less than ninety-five (95) per centum of their par value and accrued interest…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
By the agreement between the parties the bonds were “ to be held for one year, and not to be sold .... without the consent ” of defendants. Plaintiff bound himself “ to hold said bonds during the above period of one year,” and defendants bound themselves to repurchase the bonds at the option of plaintiff “ at the end of one year from the date of this contract.” These mutual undertakings must be read together. *471By the general rule the “ one year from the date of the contract ” is to be computed by excluding the day of the date, and there is nothing on the face of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- I. X. L. Furniture & Carpet Installment House v. BeretsUtah Supreme Court · 1907
- Vilsack v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Bremerman v. HayesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Collins v. MechlingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Prigg v. PrestonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.