Taylor v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. This was an action of trover and conversion by James Morgan against George W. Taylor, in which the plaintiff thus described the note which was the subject of the action.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Alleghany county. This was an action of trover and conversion by James Morgan against George W. Taylor, in which the plaintiff thus described the note which was the subject of the action. “ That whereas the said James heretofore, to wit, &c., at &c. was lawfully possessed as of his own property of a certain promissory note in writing, made and drawn by one William Williams, whereby he, the said William .Williams, promised to pay to the said James Morgan a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 29 dollars, at a certain time therein mentioned and now past, &c.”…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
There is no substantial variance between the description of the instrument in the declaration, and the evidence offered. In the due-bill, as it is called, there is an acknowledgement of indebtedness, which includes a promise to pay, which, although not in form a promissory note under the statute, may well come under that description in a declaration in trover. Though a promissory note under the statute must be in writing, there are no precise words necessary to be used in a note, or bill. Morris v. Lee, Lord Raym. Rep. 1396; Chitty on Bills…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Neiler & Warren v. KelleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Forsyth v. WellsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Learock v. PaxsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Bangor Silk Knitting Co. v. WiseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hill v. CanfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.