Wood v. Hummel

4 Watts 50
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1835·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

—Perhaps an unreasonable effect has been given to trifling words of severance in cases like the present, particularly in Geddes v; Hawke and Moneagh''v. Butler, where words binding heirs, executors and administrators, and “each” of them, were held to work a severance, though they are such as are used when there is but one obligor. It is however too late to recede, particularly in a case like the present, which is the exact counterpart of Besore v. Potter, 12 Serg. & Rawle 154. On the authority of that case we hold the bond before us to be joint and several.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wood v. Hummel, 4 Watts 50 (Pa. 1835).

4 Watts 50 (Wood v. Hummel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Philadelphia Saving Fund Society v. Commonwealth Trust Co.
44 Pa. D. & C. 98 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1941)
Van Tassel v. Churchill
10 Pa. D. & C. 219 (Tioga County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Dahlstrom v. Taylor
7 Pa. D. & C. 604 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Lehigh County v. Gossler
24 Pa. Super. 406 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)