Panati v. Booth

2 Citing cases

  1. International Fin. Corp. v. Phila. W. Drug Co.

    167 A. 790 (Pa. 1933)   Cited 5 times
    In International Finance Corp. v. Philadelphia W. Drug Co., 312 Pa. 280, 167 A. 790, the court held a trade acceptance negotiable which bore the following notation, "Accepted for payment as per Reolo contract for amount and date shown hereon."

    Robert T. McCracken, of Montgomery McCracken, with him Franklin F. Trainer, Jr., John M. Dredger, Jr., and John F. Headly, for appellant. — The acceptance was qualified and conditional: International F. Corp. v. Calvert Drug Co., 144 Md. 303; Westlake M. Finance Corp. v. Merritt, 204 Calif. 673. It has been held that where the words "as per contract" appear upon the face of a negotiable instrument, inquiry should be made as to the intention of the parties to determine whether or not the additional words were intended to state a condition or merely referred to the origin of the transaction or to the consideration on account of which the instrument was given: Panati v. Booth, 95 Pa. Super. 238; Hazeltine v. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 162; Gulf Export Co. v. Bank, 203 Ala. 528; Crane Co. v. Druid Realty Co., 137 Md. 324. Jay B. Leopold, with him Hugh H. Obear, of Douglas, Obear Douglas, Tyree Dillard, Jr., and Duane, Morris Heckscher, for appellee. — The acceptances are unconditional and the instruments negotiable: International Finance Co. v. Drug Co., 282 Fed. 920; Nat. Bank of Newbury v. Wentworth, 218 Mass. 30; Taylor v. Curry, 109 Mass. 36; Doyle v. Cosidine, 195 Ill. App. 311; Continental Bank Trust Co. v. Publishing Co., 142 La. 209; Utah Lake I. Co. v. Allen, 64 Utah 511.

  2. Traders Securities Co. v. Kalil

    162 A. 499 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932)   Cited 4 times

    The statement that "the obligation of the acceptor hereof arises out of the purchase of goods from the drawer" would not have destroyed its negotiability prior to the passage of the Negotiable Instruments Act: Devenny v. League Island Loan and Building Assn., 9 W.N.C. 127; Citizens National Bank v. Piollet, 126 Pa. 194. In the case of Panati v. Booth, 95 Pa. Super. 238, we held that placing on the face of an instrument the words "as per contract" did not destroy its negotiability. It would follow that the mere statement that the bill arose out of the purchase of goods from the drawer would not make the instrument conditional. It is not unreasonable to assume that the words were inserted to make the paper eligible for rediscount in a Federal Reserve Bank, rather than to suggest anything that created a necessity for inquiry. The same construction has been given to the act in many other jurisdictions. See annotations to case of Strand Amusement Co. v. Fox, 14 A.L.R. 1129, and 5 Uniform Laws Annotated 55.