Clement v. Reppard
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county. This was a suit by Beppard vs. Clement, on a note not under seal, dated 19th February, 1848, for $12, payable to Aaron Beppard, four months after date, for balance of work at sawmill. It was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment, and payment with leave, &c. Clement employed Beppard to superintend the building of a steam sawmill, in Sunbury.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county. This was a suit by Beppard vs. Clement, on a note not under seal, dated 19th February, 1848, for $12, payable to Aaron Beppard, four months after date, for balance of work at sawmill. It was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment, and payment with leave, &c. Clement employed Beppard to superintend the building of a steam sawmill, in Sunbury. He was.the foreman, was to superintend the work and employ the hands, and to receive $1 per day for his services. When Reppard was absent, one of the…
1Per curiam
Every person who gives a bond *113or a note without duress, is satisfied with it at the time. That he is so must he inferred from the rery nature of the act; and an express declaration of satisfaction can have no greater weight. Were the law otherwise, every promissory note would be conclusive evidence of a debt. But it is indisputable that a voluntary note cannot be recovered; while a voluntary bond, because it has a seal, which stands for a consideration, is a gift of the money. It may be safely said that the consideration of every promissory note is open to inquiry between the original parties…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kirk v. Van HornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Newell Booth Co. v. SheldrakeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903