Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1840

Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk

Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas · Decided December 19, 1840
2 Miles 442

Counsel

T. L. Smith for plaintiff., Dallas, for defendants.

Philadelphia Bank v. Newkirk

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.—

One objection is stated in the affidavit of defence, which is a sufficient reason why judgment should be refused. The plaintiffs sue on this as a promissory note. Now to constitute a promissory note, the instrument on its face must be for the payment of a sum certain, not susceptible of contingent or indefinite additions, nor subject to indefinite w contingent deductions. In this instance, the “ current rate of exchange to be added,” is clearly indefinite. See 2 Stark. 375; 4 Ba. & Ad. 619; 4 B. Moore 471.

Rule discharged.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.