Case Name: LEIGHTY against The President, Managers, and Company of the Susquehanna and Waterford Turnpike Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1826-09-19
Citations: 14 Serg. & Rawle 434
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEIGHTY against The President, Managers, and Company of the Susquehanna and Waterford Turnpike Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 14
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
[Pittsburg,
September 19, 1826.]
LEIGHTY against The President, Managers, and Company of the Susquehanna and Waterford Turnpike Company.
IN ERROR.
Giying a promissory note for the sum required by the act of assembly of the 22d of February 1812, incorporating the President, &c. of The Susquehanna and Waterford Turnpike Company, to be paid in money, at the time of subscription, is not a payment of money within the meaning of the act.
Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county, in which a case was stated for the opinion of the court, to be considered as a special verdict.
The defendants in error were plaintiffs below7.
CASE STATED.
“On the 3d of August, 1812, the defendant subscribed in the books of the above stated company, for-eight shares of the stock of the said company, for w’hich, at the time of subscription, he gave his note of hand to James Herrington and Henry Hurst, commissioners for obtaining subscriptions, for. the sum of twenty-four dollars; being the three dollars per share required to be paid by the act of assembly at the time of subscribing. The note, and several instalments on the said stock, were afterwards .paid by the defendant. The defendant afterwards subscribed for two other shares of stock in the said company, but on w'hich nothing has at any time been paid. The action was brought to recover, as well the balance of the first, as the whole of the second subscription.”
. The court below7 gave judgment for the plaintiffs!.
The cause was argued in this court by Selden and Wallace for the plaintiff in error,
who referred to the act of the 22d of February, 1812. Pamph. Law, 51. Hibernia Turnpike Company v. Henderson, 8 S'erg. & Rawle, 219. And by
Derrichson, for the defendants in error,
who cited, Thatcher v. Dinsmore, 5 Mass. Rep. 299. Sheets v. Mandeville, 6 Crunch, 364.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This ease falls within the principle established by the judgment in The Hibernia Turnpike Company v. Henderson, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 219, unless the giving of a promissory note for the sum which the act of assembly requires to be paid in money at the time of subscription, can be considered as the payment of money; and we are of opinion that it cannot. A promissory note is not money, but only an engagement to pay money at a future time, which perhaps may never be complied with. If. such notes were to be taken as money, the policy of the law, which required a payment of money, might be easily defeated.
It is the opinion of the court, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff in error.
(Judgment reversed, and judgment ¿ entered for the plaintiff in error.