Bartoshesky v. Houston Trading Corp.
Supreme Court of Delaware
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
- Continental Guaranty Corp. v. Peoples Bus LineSuperior Court of Delaware · 1922
- Baily v. BirkhoferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- McCornick & Co. v. Gem State Oil & Products Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Levitt v. Johnstown Office Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- 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
- Braun v. Fleming-Hall Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1952
- Gilliland & Echols Farm Supply & Hatchery v. Credit Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- Continental National Bank & Trust Co. v. StirlingIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
- First Bank of Marianna v. Havana Canning Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1940