Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was an action brought by the Philadelphia Bank against Garret Newkirk and Stephen S. Newkirk, copartners in trade under the firm of G. Newkirk & Son, to September term, 1840, No. 1133. The plaintiffs filed the following copy of a promissory note, on which the suit was brought.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action brought by the Philadelphia Bank against Garret Newkirk and Stephen S. Newkirk, copartners in trade under the firm of G. Newkirk & Son, to September term, 1840, No. 1133. The plaintiffs filed the following copy of a promissory note, on which the suit was brought. “ §2111 08. “Philadelphia, 13th March, 1833. “ Twelve months after date, we promise to pay to the order of Heberton and Hibler, twenty-one hundred and eleven dollars ninety-eight cents, without defalcation, for value received: payable at the Bank of the State of Missouri at St. Louis, (current rate of exchange to…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.—
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.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Hastings v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Flagg v. School District, No. 70North Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Culbertson v. NelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- Nicely v. Commercial BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
- Fitzharris v. LeggattMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.