Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Merchants & Manufacturers Bank

25 A. 764, 155 Pa. 20, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1170
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 3, 1893·No. Appeal, No. 92·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We need not discuss the question, whether the agreement by the defendant bank to pay the note for §714.14 held by the [22]*22plaintiff against the Falls Wire Manufacturing Company, not being in writing, is within the statute of frauds.

The referee has decided the case upon another ground which we think sufficient, viz.: “ That the plaintiff released defendant from its promise to pay said note on its settlement with the Falls Wire Manufacturing Company.”

The specifications of error are to the findings of facts by the referee. They do not require discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Merchants & Manufacturers Bank, 25 A. 764, 155 Pa. 20, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1170 (Pa. 1893).

25 A. 764 (Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Merchants & Manufacturers Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kiski Area School District v. Mid-State Surety Corp.
967 A.2d 368 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
Knecht, Inc. v. United Pacific Insurance Company
860 F.2d 74 (Third Circuit, 1988)
Union National Bank v. Farmers & Mechanics National Bank
114 A. 506 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)