Birmingham Iron Foundry v. Regnery
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northampton Go., June T., 1906, No. 21, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Birmingham Iron Foundry v. James Regnery. Assumpsit on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northampton Go., June T., 1906, No. 21, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Birmingham Iron Foundry v. James Regnery. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Scott, J., filed the following opinion: This action is instituted by the payee against indorser, upon a promissory note of which a copy follows : “1445.00. Catasauqua, Pa., March 16,1905. “ Three months after date we promise to pay to the order of Birmingham Iron Foundry, Four Hundred Forty-five dollars at the National Bank of…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is vigorously contended by the appellant’s counsel that the legislature, in enacting the negotiable instruments law, intended to prescribe fixed rigid rules by which negotiable instruments shall be interpreted and the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto determined ; that it is more than a mere codification of existing law, and was intended to be a complete system in itself. However true this may be as to some, or even most, of its provisions, it cannot be accepted without qualification in the construction of sec. 20, which reads: “ Where the instrument…
2Cited by5 opinions
- American Trust Co. v. CanevinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Huntington Finance Co. v. YoungWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1928
- In re LaskinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
- Bank of Italy v. West Indies Importing Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1923
- Hershey Estates v. RettewPennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1933