59 Pa. Super. 114 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1915
Opinion by
If there were no judicial precedents defining the limits of the obligation which is assumed by a surety upon entering into such a contract as the defendant entered into,
In the second place, a dozen years after Brown v. Kelly was decided the decision in Coe v. Vodges was elaborately reviewed on its facts and unequivocally treated as an authoritative precedent in Shackamaxon Bank v. Yard, 143 Pa. 129. It was recognized as such in Supplee v. Herrman, 16 Pa. Superior Ct. 45, and Reading Trust Co. v. Jackson, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 69, and it was cited and its principle applied in Shand v. McCloskey, 27 Pa. Superior Ct. 260. It would be presumptuous indeed for this court at this time to dismiss it as an overruled case. It is an authoritative precedent precisely applicable to the facts of this case and controlling.
The judgment under review is right, both on principle and authority. It is fully sustained by the clear and convincing opinion of President Judge Wilson, and we need add nothing further to what he has said.
The judgment is affirmed.