McMillan v. Davis
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 52, April T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1912, No. 341, making absolute' rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Gilbert N. McMillan v. Harry Davis. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 52, April T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1912, No. 341, making absolute' rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Gilbert N. McMillan v. Harry Davis. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Davis, J., filed the following opinion: The plaintiff is payee of a promissory note of $1,000, and brings this action against the defendant, as indorser, to recover the amount of the note. The defendant as indorser alleges as a matter of defense the total…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The agreement into which the parties entered was in no sense an option. It was a valid binding contract of purchase and sale from which neither party was at liberty to withdraw at his own pleasure. The defendant, having paid a substantial part of the purchase money in cash, and having given negotiable notes for the remainder of it, found in the fact of the delivery of the assignment to the escrow agent his security that when he paid the notes he would be in possession of the property he had purchased. The vendor could in no way have escaped the claim of the defendant to the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wills v. Manufacturers N. Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Galey Bros. v. KellermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Baum's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Cape May Real Estate Co. v. HendersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- McMillan v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914