History
  • No items yet
midpage
Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
173 Pa. 392
Pa.
1896
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

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-. *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.

Case Details

Case Name: Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jan 27, 1896
Citation: 173 Pa. 392
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 42
Court Abbreviation: Pa.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.