Gazlay v. Riegel
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. Bucks Co., April T., 1898, No. 18, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of John C. Gazlay and George E. Gazlay, trading as Gazlay Brothers v. George A. Riegel. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Yerkes, P. J. The note in suit was as follows : “$375. Durham, Pa.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from order of C. P. Bucks Co., April T., 1898, No. 18, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of John C. Gazlay and George E. Gazlay, trading as Gazlay Brothers v. George A. Riegel. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Yerkes, P. J. The note in suit was as follows : “$375. Durham, Pa. February 18, 1897. “On the 25th day of December, 1897, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of the De Laval Separator Company, three hundred and seventy-five Dollars, at the (bank) Northampton County…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This action of assumpsit was brought by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note drawn in the usual form and payable at a future date, but containing the following added clauses : “ This note is given for an Acme Turbine Separator, No. 34487. The express condition of the sale and purchase of said chattels and the giving of this note, is that the title, ownership or possession does not pass from the De Laval Separator Company, 74 Cortland street, New York, or the indorser to the maker of this note or any other person until this note is fully paid and satisfied.”
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Heryford v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Chicago Railway Equipment Co. v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Costelo v. CrowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Citizens N. Bank v. PiolletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fleming v. SherwoodNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Neyens v. PortSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Thomson v. CalhounDade County Small Claims Court · 1969