Miller v. Hemler
5 Watts & Serg. 486
Opinion
This release being by simple contract and without consideration, is void. It is not pretended that the obligee received value for it, or that the releasee was prejudiced by it; and it is entirely certain that an unsealed contract is as much unwritten as if it were oral. The judgment must, therefore, be for the plaintiff.
Judgment of the court below reversed, and judgment given here for the debt, interest and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Miller v. Hemler, 5 Watts & Serg. 486 (Pa. 1843).
5 Watts & Serg. 486 (Miller v. Hemler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Ziegler
151 F.2d 784 (Third Circuit, 1945)
Nellis v. McSweeney
6 Pa. D. & C. 608 (Erie County Court Common Pleas, 1924)
Weller v. Weyand
2 Grant 103 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1853)