Lender v. Kline

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lender v. Kline

31 A. 550, 167 Pa. 188, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 874

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 1, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 194

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A. 550 (Lender v. Kline) 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

Lender v. Kline, 31 A. 550, 167 Pa. 188, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 874 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cttrtam,

The written agreement signed by Kline was one of guaranty for the performance by Sharp of his contract with the plaintiff. If he had stood upon this contract his present contention as to his liability would have been correct. But when his principal disappeared leaving his contract unperformed and his debts unpaid Kline had to elect his position. He elected to treat the failure and flight of his principal as settled facts, and to cooperate with the plaintiff in the completion of the work that Sharp had left undone, upon that basis. He examined Sharp’s outstanding bills and himself drew orders for or authorized the payment of, the amounts as adjusted by him; and the plaintiffs completed the work, under an understanding with him, in the most economical manner practicable. He thus voluntarily assumed the position of surety. He has pointed out no substantial error by his assignments and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Cttrtam,

The written agreement signed by Kline was one of guaranty for the performance by Sharp of his contract with the plaintiff. If he had stood upon this contract his present contention as to his liability would have been correct. But when his principal disappeared leaving his contract unperformed and his debts unpaid Kline had to elect his position. He elected to treat the failure and flight of his principal as settled facts, and to cooperate with the plaintiff in the completion of the work that Sharp had left undone, upon that basis. He examined Sharp’s outstanding bills and himself drew orders for or authorized the payment of, the amounts as adjusted by him; and the plaintiffs completed the work, under an understanding with him, in the most economical manner practicable. He thus voluntarily assumed the position of surety. He has pointed out no substantial error by his assignments and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A. 550, 167 Pa. 188, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lender-v-kline-pa-1895.