Neyens v. Port

Citations

• 46 Pa. Super. 428
• 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 289

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Negotiability—Contingency.</p> <p>1. A written promise to pay which depends upon a contingency does not become a negotiable instrument if the contingency does in fact afterwards happen upon which the promise is to become absolute. Its character as a negotiable note cannot depend upon future events.</p> <p>2. While the Act of May 16, 1901, P. L. 194, provides that a promissory note shall not lose its negotiability merely because it includes a statement of the transaction out of which it arises, the provision of the statute only applies where there is “an unqualified order or promise to pay.”</p> <p>3. Where an instrument in writing dated February 23, 1906, starts out with an order for goods at a price named to be shipped f. o. b. to a city in another state four months afterwards, and concludes with a specific promise to pay the price named at a designated place in 180 days after the date of the instrument, the paper is not a negotiable promissory note, inasmuch as it does not create a liability independent of, or unaffected by, the written offer, to purchase the goods.</p>