Geiger v. Cook
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of York county. Christopher Geiger, for the use of Adam Free, against Stephen Cook. This was an action upon a sealed note for $565. The defence was want of consideration.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of York county. Christopher Geiger, for the use of Adam Free, against Stephen Cook. This was an action upon a sealed note for $565. The defence was want of consideration. The defendant offered to prove that the note in question was given for a balance on a previous note; that the consideration of the original note was a sale of two patent rights to the defendant for supposed improvements, and that in fact the patents were founded upon no improvements, secured no rights, and were therefore of no value. The plaintiff objected to this evidence, on the ground that it was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
— The numerous errors that have been assigned, have in the argument been classed under three heads, and may , be so considered. The plaintiff alleges that the consideration of the original note could not be inquired into, but the party was concluded by having given another note, and therefore the evi*269denee offered ought to have been rejected. If, however, the consideration of the note for $565 now sued on, was nothing else than the former note of $800, and the former note was void for want of consideration, this was the only mode in which…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gibson v. Union Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Bellas v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by13 opinions
- Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Marston v. . SwettNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Brandt v. KroghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Nash v. LullMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.