Floyd v. Hotchkiss
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 40, May T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1895, No. 115, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover on a guarantee of stock sold.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 40, May T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., May T., 1895, No. 115, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover on a guarantee of stock sold. Before Henderson, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear from the following charge of the court: On the 1st day of February, 1898, the defendant gave to the plaintiff a writing in the words following: “For value received I promise to pay A. B. Floyd eight hundred dollars or eight shares of Whipple Loan and Trust company stock. And I guarantee said stock and the payment thereof at one hundred cents on the dollar for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
As this case finally went to the jury in the court below, the recovery was based upon the following writing given by the defendant to the plaintiff:
“f800.00 February 1st, 1893.
For value received, I promise to pay A. B. Floyd Eight hundred dollars (1800.00) or eight shares of Whipple Loan & Trust Company stock, and I guarantee the said stock and the payment thereof at one hundred cents on the dollar for two years from the date hereof, and at any time the said A. B. Floyd wishes to dispose of the said stock at its full face value I am to have the first choice to purchase…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lattavo v. Virginia Fire & Marine InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Brukas v. Union National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942