Klapp v. Kleckner
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county. George Kleckner against John Klapp. Assumpsit, founded upon the following agreement: Article of an agreement made and entered into the 25th of March 1836, between George Kleckner,. of Hartley township, Union county, Pennsylvania, of the one part, and Henry Charles of the township, county and state aforesaid, of the other part, witnesseth, that the said George Kleckner does, by these presents, agree to lease for rent, unto the said…
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Union county. George Kleckner against John Klapp. Assumpsit, founded upon the following agreement: Article of an agreement made and entered into the 25th of March 1836, between George Kleckner,. of Hartley township, Union county, Pennsylvania, of the one part, and Henry Charles of the township, county and state aforesaid, of the other part, witnesseth, that the said George Kleckner does, by these presents, agree to lease for rent, unto the said Henry Charles, all that parcel or tract of land, &c., for the term of three years, containing 100 acres, more or less,…
1Per curiam
The surety’s contract was several as well as *520joint. A bond binding the parties, their heirs, executors and administrators, and each or every of them, was held so in Besore v. Potter, (12 Serg. & Rawle 154), as well as in subsequent cases; and in Wampler v. Shissler, (1 Watts & Serg. 365), a recognizance to be levied of the goods, chattels, lands or tenements of the parties respectively, was held to be joint and several. Here an intent to create a several liability is still more apparent in the style of the promises which were made in the name of the lessee. Thus, it was said, “ the said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wampler v. ShisslerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Besore v. PotterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824