Longacre v. Robinson

Decision Date10 April 1922
Docket Number214
PartiesLongacre v. Robinson et al., Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued February 14, 1922

Appeal, No. 214, Jan. T., 1922, by defendant, I. Robinson from order of C.P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1920, No. 457 discharging rule to open judgment, in case of E. D. Longacre v. Ida Robinson and I. Robinson. Affirmed.

Rule to open judgment.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Rule discharged in opinion by BERGER, J.

Defendant, I. Robinson, appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was order, quoting it.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.

James J. Bell, with him Henry Houck, for appellant.

M. M. Burke, with him P. H. Burke, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:

The reasons assigned in the court below to open the judgment in this case were, (1st) the note on which judgment was entered was given in payment of an automobile truck of a capacity of two and a half tons, whereas the one delivered was three-quarters of a ton, and (2d) the truck was known to have been purchased for a special purpose and, to meet that purpose, certain requirements were demanded; the truck did not meet those requirements. Plaintiff knew this and promised to remedy the defects, but never did so. The court below discharged the rule to open.

There is no doubt the truck performed badly, and plaintiff knew all about it; on many occasions he or some representative of the truck company undertook, with more or less success, to repair or exchange certain parts; defendant, though constantly complaining, used the machine, traveling many thousands of miles, and, finally, made an ineffective effort to return it. When it was purchased, in addition to the judgment note, on which this appeal is based, there was executed and delivered a promissory note, due three months after date; when this latter note became due, defendant, with full knowledge of the defective condition of the truck, executed a renewal note to the bank then holding it. The court below found from this, defendant was not induced to execute the renewal by any promise made by the plaintiff; it was made with full knowledge of the facts, voluntarily, and without reserving any right to him arising from the truck's defective condition; he thereby waived the defense of failure of consideration. The time for him to have acted, safeguarding any right he had, was when the bankable note was presented for renewal; at least he must not place others in jeopardy by impliedly asserting as true things that are not.

The governing principle is expressed in 8 C.J. 444, where it is said, "one who gives a note in renewal of another note with knowledge at the time of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Hubbell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 7, 1925
    ...... 346.). . . Giving. of a renewal note waives any defense to original of which. maker had knowledge at time of renewal. (Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35, 117 A. 408; McGinnis v. McCormick, 28 Ga.App. 144, 110 S.E. 341; Thorpe v. Cooley, 138 Minn. 431, 165 N.W. 265; Adams v. ......
  • First Nat. Bank of Williamsburg v. Smith
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 27, 1938
    ...or partial failure of consideration at the time he renews a note, is estopped from asserting such defense. Longacre v. Robinson et al., 274 Pa. 35, 117 A. 408; First National Bank at Pittsburgh v. Singer et al., 322 Pa. 207, 208, 185 A. 647; First National Bank of Pittsburgh v. Dowling, sup......
  • People's Wayne Cnty. Bank of Dearborn v. Harvey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 21, 1934
    ...corporation stock for which the original note was given, the fraud, if any, was waived by the renewal. To like effect are Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35, 117 A. 408;Euclid Avenue State Bnak v. Nesbit, 201 Iowa, 506, 207 N. W. 761;Bosworth v. Greiling (Wis.) 250 N. W. 856. Although the all......
  • Ebensburg Trust Co. v. Pike
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 15, 1929
    ...of renewal notes given without question having been raised as to the consideration of the original obligation, and, as stated in Longacre v. Robinson, 274 Pa. 35, waived the defense of failure of consideration by omitting to mention it at the times the renewal notes were given, especially w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT