209 Pa. 1 | Pa. | 1904
Pizzi, the plaintiff, was engaged with two others, Frank and Ruhland, in work at certain houses in Philadelphia. For the work he did, stone masonry, Pizzi was to get forty-five cents per
“ It will be found after examination that in nearly all the decisions in which it has been held that such a promise is not, within the statute, there was some liability of the promisor, or his property independent of his express promise or that he had become the actual debtor, so that as between him and the original debtor the superior liability was his.”
And this test of the legal liability of the promisor notwithstanding the statute has been maintained through all the many cases since. ' So ¡ in this case, if Nardello’s promise was made
All the assignments are overruled and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of that court.