Sweeney v. Thickstun
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October Term 1874, No. 149. On the 11th of June 1872, a judgment was entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county in favor of R. E. Wilson to the use of William Sweeney against Israel Thickstun for $630, by virtue of the following note and warrant of attorney:— “ $600. Cussewago, Pa., June 10th 1871. “ One year after date, for value received, we promise to pay to R. E. Wilson or order, six hundred dollars…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of October Term 1874, No. 149. On the 11th of June 1872, a judgment was entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county in favor of R. E. Wilson to the use of William Sweeney against Israel Thickstun for $630, by virtue of the following note and warrant of attorney:— “ $600. Cussewago, Pa., June 10th 1871. “ One year after date, for value received, we promise to pay to R. E. Wilson or order, six hundred dollars at six per cent, interest. And in case of default of payment at maturity, an additional five per cent, for collection of…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court,
2Per curiam
This case does not differ in the least degree from that of Overton v. Tyler etal., 3 Barr 346; in which it was held that such a judgment note was not a negotiable instrument under the law merchant. Indeed the note in this instance has some provisions in it not in that in Overton v. Tyler. The reference made by Read, J., in Zimmerman v. Anderson, 17 P. F. Smith 421, to the case of Osborn v. Hanley, 19 Ohio 130, was arguendo and only to show how far the rule as to non-negotiable paper had been relaxed in other states. But he clearly did not intend to…
3Cited by3 opinions
- Iron City N. Bank v. McCordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Post v. Kinzua Hemlock Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Litcher v. North City Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933