215 Pa. 305 | Pa. | 1906
Opinion by
The Vandergrift Construction Company undertook the building of a viaduct over a railroad at Newport News. It engaged the steel material required from the American Bridge Company, the appellant, by written contract, in which the price of the steel for the superstructure was fixed at a certain rate per pound, and the price for the piers and braces at a certain other rate per pound, the aggregate amount not being stated, and not ascertainable except by calculation based on the detailed drawings which were referred to in the contract, but did not accompany it. In this connection the Colonial Trust Company, appellee, made the following guaranty: “ Referring to contract dated 81st day of January, 1908, with the Vandergrift Construction Company for delivery of certain material and erection thereof at Newport News, to be used for the construction of a viaduct on the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Company at Twenty-sixth street in said town of Newport News, we hereby guarantee payment for said material, not to exceed in the aggregate thirteen thousand (13,000) dollars.” Pursuant to this arrangement the bridge company delivered the necessary material for the structure, to the amount in value of $15,490.88. The construction company made payments amounting to $9,019.18, and the trust company paid $3,980.82, the two sums aggregating $13,000. Default was made in payment of the balance of $2,419.88, and the bridge company brought this action against the trust company to recover on its guaranty. The court below held that by payment of the $13,000 the guaranty was fully met and discharged, and directed a verdict for the defendant. It is this ruling of the court that is assigned as error.
The contract of guaranty is somewhat unusual but free from difficulty. It means necessarily one of two things : either that the trust company will answer to the extent of $13,000 for any default that the construction company may make in paying for any and all the material furnished it by the bridge company under its contract for the viaduct, without regard to the aggregate of such material, or, that it will guarantee payment of $13,000 worth of material to be supplied the construction company, and nothing beyond. The first expresses the contention of the appellant; the second, that of the appel
Judgment affirmed.