Claridge & Rudolph v. Klett & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Klett & Dallam, co-partners, against Claridge & Rudolph, on a promissory note, in the following words:— $1000. Philadelphia, September 2d, 1848. One year after date, we promise to pay to'the order of Edwin Young, one thousand dollars, without defalcation, for value received. Claridge & Rudolph. Endorsed, Edwin Young.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court, Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Klett & Dallam, co-partners, against Claridge & Rudolph, on a promissory note, in the following words:— $1000. Philadelphia, September 2d, 1848. One year after date, we promise to pay to'the order of Edwin Young, one thousand dollars, without defalcation, for value received. Claridge & Rudolph. Endorsed, Edwin Young. The summons was issued on 11th September, 1849; returnable on the first Monday of October. On the 16th October, the affidavit of defence of both defendants was filed: It stated that on the 2d…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Coulter, J.
The plaintiffs below contended that the agreement of 2d September, A. D. 1848, contains two distinct stipulations on the *258part of Klett & Co., independent of and unconnected with each other; one, that he would stop the proceedings against Claridge & Rudolph ; the other, that he would enter satisfaction on the judgment when the notes were given. And that, in consideration of the first, Claridge & Rudolph gave their negotiable note, endorsed by Young, which was to be unaffected by the individual notes given five days afterwards, by Claridge &…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Snyder v. RaineySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Bank of the United States v. Shetter, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1927