Legal Opinion

Wilson & Gardner Co. v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 3, 1939No. Appeal, 237PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The defense to this action on promissory notes between maker and payee was lack of consideration; that the notes were given as an accommodation to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s original statement averred that the consideration was the sale and delivery of merchandise to defendant. At the first trial this claim was abandoned; plaintiff failed to establish the sale or any other consideration. The case was continued, and a new statement was filed wherein plaintiff relied solely on an averment that the notes were given for “value received.” Defendant in reply admitted execution and delivery…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Tamaqua Borough School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Security T. & T. Co. v. Welsh & BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  3. National Realty Appraisal Co. v. Art ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Klerlein v. Fred Werner Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  5. Berreski v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Larsen v. First BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Kine v. FormanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
  3. Moore v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Ridgway National Bank, Guardian of the Estate of Robert Aiello, a Mental Incompetent v. North American Van Lines, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1964
  5. Saxe v. FEINSTEINSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API