Commercial Bank v. Clapier
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This action, which was tried, before Judge Rogers at Nisi Prius on the 24th of November, 1827, was brought by the plaintiffs, who were the holders of a promissory note drawn by Arthur St. Clair Nichols in favour of Wilson Hunt, dated February 27th 1826, payable six months after date, for two thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars and eight cents, and endorsed by Hunt, against the defendants, who were the assignees of the said Wilson Hunt in a voluntary assignment,…
Read the full summary
This action, which was tried, before Judge Rogers at Nisi Prius on the 24th of November, 1827, was brought by the plaintiffs, who were the holders of a promissory note drawn by Arthur St. Clair Nichols in favour of Wilson Hunt, dated February 27th 1826, payable six months after date, for two thousand four hundred and seventy-six dollars and eight cents, and endorsed by Hunt, against the defendants, who were the assignees of the said Wilson Hunt in a voluntary assignment, dated August 4th 1826, to recover the amount of the said note, which they alleged, was provided for in the assignment as a…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
It seems clear on one of the grounds assumed in the argument, though not on all, that the evidence was not only competent, but such as to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. As the object was, among other things, to secure what is in substance the very debt, though erroneously described in the assignment, it has' been insisted that the evidence Was proper to explain, without changing the legal effect of the instrument, a matter that appeared unambiguous oh the face of it. Necessity, however, not accident, is the foundation of parol…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Graham v. LockhartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Peters v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
- Succession of OliverLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1925