Leighty v. President of the Susquehanna & Waterford Turnpike Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, in which a case was stated for the opinion of the court, to be considered as a special verdict. The defendants in error were plaintiffs below7. CASE STATED.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, in which a case was stated for the opinion of the court, to be considered as a special verdict. The defendants in error were plaintiffs below7. CASE STATED. “On the 3d of August, 1812, the defendant subscribed in the books of the above stated company, for-eight shares of the stock of the said company, for w’hich, at the time of subscription, he gave his note of hand to James Herrington and Henry Hurst, commissioners for obtaining subscriptions, for. the sum of twenty-four dollars; being the three dollars per share…
1Per curiam
This ease falls within the principle established by the judgment in The Hibernia Turnpike Company v. Henderson, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 219, unless the giving of a promissory note for the sum which the act of assembly requires to be paid in money at the time of subscription, can be considered as the payment of money; and we are of opinion that it cannot. A promissory note is not money, but only an engagement to pay money at a future time, which perhaps may never be complied with. If. such notes were to be taken as money, the policy of the law, which required a payment of money, might be easily…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- President of Hibernia Turnpike Road v. HendersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ashley Development v. PPL ElectricSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Hayne v. BeauchampMississippi Supreme Court · 1846