*2 CAVANAUGH, SPAETH, JJ. Before HESTER HESTER, Judge: this from an Berg brings John A. Order appeal

Appellant release collateral for a refusing posted of the court to below bond. We affirm. Alexan- In appellee

Pertinent facts are as follows. Inc., Alexander, judgment by secured a default der & defendants, including $18,254.19 against Berg, various then transferred which was Philadelphia County, writ a of exe- to Alexander obtained Montgomery County. granted for and were cution, petitioned but the defendants bond, For the required Pa.R.Civ.P. of of stock. The preferred his own Berg posted $37,500.00 April court 1976 contained bond filed with the on of which is much clause, disputed the construction following parties: personal his or his if the heirs Obligor, [Berg] Now said inter- and will shall representatives, hereinafter, then the costs, (90) ninety est and within effect, no and otherwise to be void and of obligation above virtue until leave of be and to remain in full force and the execution. is to further granted pursue Court and the to this Court Following appeals unsuccessful judgment,1 the default challenging Court the judgment and was a modification of granted petitioned plus the amount at fixing him personally, $502.00 Alexander, who then request- sum he interest. This execution, which request ed court to vacate for the return of petitioned was then granted. $37,500.00 stock, that a arguing necessary worth of collateral leave of court satisfied, was viz: “until condition the bond Following execution.” granted to further denied, and this fol- argument, appeal Berg’s request lowed. *3 argue and Alexander that the appellee

The lower court conditions, of of the bond contains two both quoted portion be re- may which must be fulfilled before the collateral (2) the full 1) leased: must obligor satisfy execution. pursue the court must leave to further grant disjunc- two conditions are in the Berg counters that these condition has not been yet tive. He concedes that the first plus met since his of interest does not payment $502.00 him But he obligor. the full amount due from as condition, of second leave to avers that the fulfillment release of to now authorize is sufficient pursue the collateral. be construed to in a bond should

The covenants intended, far as that intention can mean what the so parties is not language If the language. be ascertained from doubt, however, free from the circumstances particular purposes of the bond and the making account. In should be taken into given which it of two or more event, of a bond capable the provisions obligor. strongly against are construed most meanings See, Alexander, Banking, Penn 244 Inc. v. Central 1. Alexander & alloc, 31, 517, (1976), Pa.Super. Jan. 371 A.2d 502 den.

326 Eberts, v. 161, 10 A.2d 397

E. P. Wilbur Trust Co. 337 Pa. Assn. v. Willey, Merchants B. & L. (1940); Manufacturers & Metzner, 191 Pa.Super. v. 789; Emery 340, 321 Pa. 183 A. v. Erny, Krewson Pa.Super. 158 440, (1959); 156 A.2d 627 Bonds, 380, P.L.E. (1946); 45 A.2d 240 § the use of with the court below agree We of the bond: satisfac two conditions word “and” links the and leave of court execution. tion the two conjunction joining of a different Employment intended parties suggested clauses well have may need to be other of the conditions one or the only that See, e. Pa. g., Std. discharged. fulfilled before the bond two joining “but otherwise” (use Prac. 585-6 of pp. phrase has some the term “and” bond). Although conditions of statutory in certain to mean “or” times been construed Petrash, 433, 229 A.2d 878 In Re 425 Pa. see, e. phrases, g., Philadelphia, Pa.Super. (1967); Burgis County Martin, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. (1951); Appeal A.2d 561 directed us to no authori has (1978), appellant 381 A.2d 1321 we read Accordingly, is such a case. this ty suggesting or of “connection meaning its normal “and” to embrace “in differ means simply The term “otherwise” addition”. Webster’s New ent or different manner”. Seventh way “otherwise” is mere (1970). Instantly, Collegiate Dictionary which must be a different condition introducing an adverb ly condition before the addition to (“and”) previous met normal defini In view of these be released. may bond recites words, it is clear that tions of the disputed were be fulfilled. Even conditions, two both of which must as anoth interpretation accept appellant-obligor’s we to *4 to still be construction, required we would er reasonable strongly against of the bond most construe the provisions Friedman, 591, v. 121 Pa.Super. Commonwealth the obligor. (1936). 184 A. 672 court, refusing of the lower the order

Accordingly, collateral, hereby the is affirmed. release affirmed. Order

SPAETH, J., dissenting opinion. files a SPAETH, dissenting: Judge, interpretation majority’s the by not persuaded

I am states in the conditions it the here, instead read but collateral, his back is, get could before that disjunctive, him within 90 the judgment had to satisfy either he execution. the or the court had to lift Eberts, 337 Pa. 161, 168, 10 A.2d v. Tr. Co. In E. P. Wilbur stated: Court the (1940), to mean be construed bond should in a The covenants intention can be far as that intended so what the parties If, however, the .... words used the ascertained doubt, then the circumstances free from is not language the bond and particularly making the be taken into should given, it was for which purpose omitted.) (Citation account. Ass’n and Loan Building and Merchants

See Manufacturers v. Erny, Krewson (1936); v. 183 A. 789 Willey, 321 Pa. Greenfield, (1946); Barratt 380, 45 A.2d 240 158 Pa. Super. (1939). 310, 9 A.2d 188 137 Pa.Super. otherwise,” term “and

Here, has majority equated conditions, “and,” giving with two stated which connects the “ introduc- an adverb merely ‘otherwise’ is as its reason that in addition to must be met condition which a different ing be may condition before (‘and’) previous as language I cannot that agree At 222. released.” Webster’s Third majority suggests. as the unambiguous three (1961) has Unabridged Dictionary International New “1: in a used as an adverb: “otherwise” when definitions of manner; circumstances: 2: in different or way different conditions; When respects.” 3: in other other under here, bond would seem applied definition is second collateral, back if was to provide circumstances, in different satisfied, but had to be I find be sufficient. might of execution lifting as that of the persuasive of the bond as this interpretation case, it demonstrates at least but majority, ambiguous. bond is

328 Eberts, E. P. Wilbur Tr. supra Co. noted,

As at A.2d at bond is the court must ambiguous when a ascertain the to the surround- parties’ by looking intentions for which the bond was ing purpose circumstances and the Here, of the circum- given. a consideration stances and of the bond shows that it is purpose improbable Berg the is correct. and the majority’s interpretation other defendants the bond so that the lower court posted would execution of the them while stay judgment the this court and they litigated validity judgment in the Court. The bond Alexan- Supreme protect was solely der and Alexander’s until execution. Once the judgment lower court lifted the which occurred stay collateral, before for the release of his the Berg petitioned bond no served useful The collateral longer purpose. should therefore been released. The inter- majority’s have however, would had pretation require, Berg judgment satisfied the within 90 previously days of the bond. It is difficult to understand the reason entry for this since the bond was requirement, only additional a vehicle protect intended to not to serve as lifted, was satisfying it. Once the of execution free to execute on the judg- Alexander and Alexander was ment.

Assume the three cases: following in 1) had satisfied the full within 90 Berg judgment days. would not be majority’s interpretation, Berg Under until the court grant- entitled back on a that had judgment ed leave to execution been satisfied. already

2) in full within 90 Berg judgment had not satisfied but on

days judgment appeal attacked successfully majority’s interpretation, to this court. Under within judgment would have had to have though judgment of the bond even days later declared void. within

3) in full judgment had not satisfied attacking and had not been successful on to this court or the Court. appeal The lower court then lifted the of execution. *6 point, Even if satisfied the at this judgment the collateral could majority’s interpretation under not be because the was not satisfied judgment released within 90 of the bond. days entry is certainly require Berg The second case troublesome: to while he was it would judgment contesting to pay would eliminate the need for bond: effectively why Alexander and Alexander need to its with protect judgment it had a bond when been the amount of already The third case is even more trouble- judgment? perhaps some, If because it is close to the facts of this case. we assume that has not at satisfied the present judgment- clear, and this is since that his Berg argues no means payment obligation-and did entire $502 so, that he then decides that he wants do he still could not back his not satis- collateral because fied within 90 of the bond. I submit that entry absurd, such a result is and that the to render this only way it as the release of interpret permitting reasonable is to collateral now that of execution has been lifted. dismissing Berg’s

I should vacate the lower court’s order be petition and order that his collateral released.

421 A.2d 224 Pennsylvania, Appellant, COMMONWEALTH of Michael Dale PLYBON.

Superior Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued Dec.

Filed July