Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann

34 A. 67, 173 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 715

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 27, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 42·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

So far as appears in the statement of claim, the alleged contract of the defendants with the plaintiff company was a secondary or collateral agreement as contradistinguished from a primary or original undertaking. It is virtually an agreement to answer' for the debt or default of the Penn Elevator Engineering Company ; and, not being in writing, it comes within the letter as-. [395] well as the spirit of the act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 809. There was therefore no error in entering judgment for the defendants on the demurrer to plaintiff’s statement.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

So far as appears in the statement of claim, the alleged contract of the defendants with the plaintiff company was a secondary or collateral agreement as contradistinguished from a primary or original undertaking. It is virtually an agreement to answer' for the debt or default of the Penn Elevator Engineering Company ; and, not being in writing, it comes within the letter as-. [395] well as the spirit of the act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 809. There was therefore no error in entering judgment for the defendants on the demurrer to plaintiff’s statement.

Judgment affirmed.

Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann, 34 A. 67, 173 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 715 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

34 A. 67 (Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related