Legal Opinion

Bartoshesky v. Houston Trading Corp.

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided April 19, 1938No. 2PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rodney, J.,

delivering the opinion of the Court:

At the very outset of this discussion we note that every objection of the Defendant Below, Plaintiff in Error, is founded upon the language of the trade acceptance, a copy of which is attached to the statement of claim. In Shaw v. Newton, 5 Boyce (28 Del.) 19, 90 A. 465, it was said that in a suit on a note the fact of filing a copy of the note with the declaration does not make the note or copy *315a part of the declaration, but that its sole purpose under the statute, Revised Code of 1935, § 4649, was to dispense with the necessity of proof of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Continental Guaranty Corp. v. Peoples Bus LineSuperior Court of Delaware · 1922
  2. Baily v. BirkhoferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  3. McCornick & Co. v. Gem State Oil & Products Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Levitt v. Johnstown Office Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Pierce, Butler & Pierce Manufacturing Corp. v. Daniel Russell Boiler Works, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Braun v. Fleming-Hall Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1952
  2. Gilliland & Echols Farm Supply & Hatchery v. Credit Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1959
  3. Continental National Bank & Trust Co. v. StirlingIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
  4. First Bank of Marianna v. Havana Canning Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API