Bing v. Willey

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Bing v. Willey

23 A. 440, 146 Pa. 381, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1235

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketNo. 94

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A. 440 (Bing v. Willey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bing v. Willey, 23 A. 440, 146 Pa. 381, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1235 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam :

The only question is whether the contract alleged by the plaintiff is against public policy. We do not know that it has ever been alleged that it is against public policy for a man to pay for bail or security. It is done every day by public officers, trustees, guardians, and other persons. Indeed, we have trust companies, a large part of whose business it is to furnish security for a consideration. That the bond in this case was as surety for a license to sell liquor, does not affect the principle. The law requires the bond to be given in case a license is granted, and we know of no reason why the licensee should not pay for his security, if he cannot get it otherwise. The defendant denied the contract as alleged by the plaintiff, and' contended that he had not agreed to return the money under any circumstances. This was properly left to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam :

The only question is whether the contract alleged by the plaintiff is against public policy. We do not know that it has ever been alleged that it is against public policy for a man to pay for bail or security. It is done every day by public officers, trustees, guardians, and other persons. Indeed, we have trust companies, a large part of whose business it is to furnish security for a consideration. That the bond in this case was as surety for a license to sell liquor, does not affect the principle. The law requires the bond to be given in case a license is granted, and we know of no reason why the licensee should not pay for his security, if he cannot get it otherwise. The defendant denied the contract as alleged by the plaintiff, and' contended that he had not agreed to return the money under any circumstances. This was properly left to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 440, 146 Pa. 381, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bing-v-willey-pactcomplallegh-1892.