Geist v. Stier

Citations

• 134 Pa. 216
• 25 W.N.C. 569
• 19 A. 505
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 693

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(«) The maker of promissory notes defended against an action thereon, upon the ground that their consideration was the purchase of a certain business, the principal value of which lay in a peculiar process of etching on glass, and that he was obliged to give up the business by reason of a written notice, from a person claiming to be patentee of said process, to discontinue using the same or he would “ be dealt with according to law.”</p> <p>1. Standing alone, unaccompanied by an offer to show that the party claiming to have a patent had bi'ought suit and established his right thereto, or had taken any further steps, after giving the notice, to deter the defendant from using said process, or, that in fact the process was ever patented, or even patentable, the written notice to stop using it was not admissible in support of such defence.</p> <p>2. Conceding that a warranty of the seller’s title to said process was implied in the sale, the more notice and threat to sue did not absolve the defendant from liability to pay the notes: a purchaser of personal property, in full possession thereof, cannot refuse to pay for it because a third party has asserted a superior title and threatened to bring suit for the recovery of the property or its value.</p> <p>3. A stipulation in a receipt for a promissory note, given for the prioe of a business sold, to the effect that if it is not paid, or other satisfactory arrangements made, the business shall belong to the vendor, does not give the vendee the’ right to surrender the business in discharge of his note, but merely gives to the vendor an option to repossess himself of the business, in case the note is not paid at maturity.</p>