Appeal of Lane

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Appeal of Lane

5 A. 21, 112 Pa. 499, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 304

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 12, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 5 A. 21 (Appeal of Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appeal of Lane, 5 A. 21, 112 Pa. 499, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 304 (Pa. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, April 12th, 1886.

The comprehensive language of the bond is such as to preclude the application of the rule claimed by the appellants. The recital declares Hooper has been employed by the trustees of the Philadelphia Gas Works “ to do and perform whatever kind of work, service or duty, which he may be assigned to by the said trustees, or those in their employment.” The conditions are that he shall well and truly perform, execute and discharge “ all and every employment, work, service or duty which he may be assigned to as aforesaid,” or which he may assume or undertake for or on behalf of said trustees, and shall and will, well and truly, “ account for and to the said trustees for all moneys, goods, chattels, rights, credits, property and estate which may or shall come into his possession, power, custody or control by reason or on account of the said employment, work, service or duty, or otherwise howsoever.”

All the parol evidence given is insufficient to limit or qualify the clear and expressive language of the bond. It is not sufficient that the principal and co-obligee may have represented its purpose to be otherwise than its language declares. No one authorized to bind the trustees or the city of Philadelphia said or did anything which will change the legal effect of the obligation.

The principal was not an officer for any specific term designated by law. He was merely" an employé, without limitation as to time. His term was co-extensive in time with his employment. The one continued as long as the other. He was to perform all work to which he might be assigned from time to time by his employers. His duty and obligation were to account for and pay over all moneys which came into his hands, possession or control. He failed to so account and pay over. The learned judge committed no error in refusing to open the judgment which was entered on the bond.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Mercur

delivered the opinion of the court, April 12th, 1886.

The comprehensive language of the bond is such as to preclude the application of the rule claimed by the appellants. The recital declares Hooper has been employed by the trustees of the Philadelphia Gas Works “ to do and perform whatever kind of work, service or duty, which he may be assigned to by the said trustees, or those in their employment.” The conditions are that he shall well and truly perform, execute and discharge “ all and every employment, work, service or duty which he may be assigned to as aforesaid,” or which he may assume or undertake for or on behalf of said trustees, and shall and will, well and truly, “ account for and to the said trustees for all moneys, goods, chattels, rights, credits, property and estate which may or shall come into his possession, power, custody or control by reason or on account of the said employment, work, service or duty, or otherwise howsoever.”

All the parol evidence given is insufficient to limit or qualify the clear and expressive language of the bond. It is not sufficient that the principal and co-obligee may have represented its purpose to be otherwise than its language declares. No one authorized to bind the trustees or the city of Philadelphia said or did anything which will change the legal effect of the obligation.

The principal was not an officer for any specific term designated by law. He was merely" an employé, without limitation as to time. His term was co-extensive in time with his employment. The one continued as long as the other. He was to perform all work to which he might be assigned from time to time by his employers. His duty and obligation were to account for and pay over all moneys which came into his hands, possession or control. He failed to so account and pay over. The learned judge committed no error in refusing to open the judgment which was entered on the bond.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A. 21, 112 Pa. 499, 1886 Pa. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-lane-pa-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack