Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
This text of 34 A. 67 (Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann) 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.
Opinion
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]*395well 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 A. 67, 173 Pa. 392, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-machine-co-v-cann-pa-1896.