Horner Sales Corp. v. Motor Sport
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Writing for the Court | Before STERN; ARNOLD |
Citation | 377 Pa. 392,105 A.2d 285 |
Parties | HORNER SALES CORP. v. MOTOR SPORT, Inc. et al. Appeal of HORNER. HORNER v. MOTOR SPORT, Inc. et al. |
Decision Date | 24 May 1954 |
Page 285
v.
MOTOR SPORT, Inc. et al.
Appeal of HORNER.
HORNER
v.
MOTOR SPORT, Inc. et al.
Rehearing Denied June 4, 1954.
[377 Pa. 393] James C. Tallant and Elizabeth Bailey, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Allen N. Brunwasser, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
[377 Pa. 392] Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, MUSMANNO and ,ARNOLD, Jj.
[377 Pa. 393] ARNOLD, Justice.
This action involves a confession of judgment upon warrants of attorney contained in judgment notes. On May 15, 1953, judgment was confessed in favor of Horner Sales Corporation, plaintiff, against Motor Sport, Inc., maker, and Robert G. Ryberg, endorser, of a judgment note dated November 8, 1952. The note contains a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, both on its face and in the endorsement. This judgment was assigned by Horner Sales Corporation to E. E. Horner. On the same day, to wit May 15, 1953, judgment was confessed on another note in favor of E. E. Horner, plaintiff, against Motor Sport, Inc., maker, and Robert G. Ryberg, endorser. This note also contained on its face and in the endorsement a warrant of attorney to confess judgment.
Rules were entered on E. E. Horner to show cause why the said judgments should not be stricken from the record
Page 286
The court below made these rules absolute, and from these orders E. E. Horner appeals. The issues involved in the two cases are identical and will be disposed of in one opinion. The question is: Does the confession of judgment in one action against both the maker and endorser of a note, containing on its face and in the endorsement a warrant to confess judgment, invalidate said judgment?[377 Pa. 394] Prior to 1933 a judgment confessed against the maker and endorser of a judgment note on two separate warrants of attorney, was held void by both appellate courts of Pennsylvania, the reason being that the maker and the endorser could not be sued in the same action, they not being joint, but several, obligors. 1
Section 1 of the Act of May 25, 1933, P.L. 1057, 12 P.S. § 151 (commonly referred to as the Written Obligations Act) provided: 'Any person having a right of action on a written instrument of any kind whatsoever, except one creating a purely joint obligation, may, at his option, join as defendants in a single action thereon all or any one or more persons alleged to be severally, jointly or severally, or jointly and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
1st Summit Bank v. Samuelson, 970383
...submission to the jurisdiction of the court, given by consent and without the service of process." 5 Horner Sales Corp. v. Motor Sport, 377 Pa. 392, 105 A.2d 285, 286 (1954); see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2950 to 2967 (Confession of Judgment for Money). This process allows the lender to step into the s......
-
Burke v. North Huntingdon Tp., 2882
...of Pennsylvania v. Regal Corrugated Box Company, 383 Pa. 499, 502, 119 A.2d 270; Horner Sales Corporation et al. v. Motor Sport, Inc., 377 Pa. 392, 105 A.2d 285; Slingluff v. Dennis, 376 Pa. 91, 96, 101 A.2d 755; Siranovich et al. v. Butkovich, 366 Pa. 56, 63, 76 A.2d 640; 4 Anderson, Penns......
-
Burke v. North Huntingdon Tp. Municipal Authority
...of Pennsylvania v. Regal Corrugated Box Company. 383 Pa. 499, 502, 119 A.2d 270; Horner Sales Corporation v. Motor Sport, Inc., 377 Pa. 392, 105 A.2d 285; Slingluff v. Dennis, 376 Pa. 91, 96, 101 A.2d 755; Siranovich v. Butkovich, 366 Pa. 56, 63, 76 A.2d 640; 4 Anderson, Pennsylvania Civil ......
-
Caplan v. Seidman
...181 Pa. 549, 37 A. 518; Ansley v. George Coal Mining Co., 88 Pa.Super. 40. Appellant relies on Horner Sales Corp. v. Motor Sport, Inc., 377 Pa. 392, 105 A.2d 285, but in that case the note under consideration contained a warrant [203 Pa.Super. 173] of attorney to confess judgment both on it......