Union Canal Co. v. Antillo
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. This action was brought by Charlotte B. D. Antillo against the Union Canal Company. The plaintiff filed a copy of the following instrument H3 a <3 . .3 § u . P > O |: * j 3 g I'i JHo *> CD u ^ © ^ O T3 O S «) CO «4-< “ Union Canal Loan.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia. This action was brought by Charlotte B. D. Antillo against the Union Canal Company. The plaintiff filed a copy of the following instrument H3 a <3 . .3 § u . P > O |: * j 3 g I'i JHo *> CD u ^ © ^ O T3 O S «) CO «4-< “ Union Canal Loan. Certificate No. 54. These presents do certify that there is due from the Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania to Charlotte B. D. Antillo, or her assigns, the sum of $200, bearing an interest of 6 per cent, per annum, payable quarterly on the 16th days of July, October, January and April, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
— The intention of the parties, to be collected from the instrument itself, is the only rule of construction. The certificate might have been expressed in more precise and intelligible language, but giving every word of the contract its fair and legitimate meaning, its import seems to be this. In the first place, we must remark that the instrument must be viewed in reference to two periods, before and after the 1st of January 1840, and also as it affects the interest of the borrower and lender. Before the 1st of January 1840, the borrower is…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Schachne v. Corporation of the Chamber of CommerceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1918