Beers v. Robinson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Armstrong. The plaintiff in tbis case was a creditor of Keenan, and proved that Keenan’s property was sold at auction, and tbe notes'given by tbe purchasers handed to defendant, who promised Keenan to pay bis debts so far as they and tbe property purchased by defendant would go. Burrell, P. J., told tbe jury tbe plaintiff could maintain tbe action.
Read the full summary
In error from tbe Common Pleas of Armstrong. The plaintiff in tbis case was a creditor of Keenan, and proved that Keenan’s property was sold at auction, and tbe notes'given by tbe purchasers handed to defendant, who promised Keenan to pay bis debts so far as they and tbe property purchased by defendant would go. Burrell, P. J., told tbe jury tbe plaintiff could maintain tbe action. An agreement was offered in evidence by defendant, but what it was could not be gathered from tbe paper-book.
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The article of agreement between A. Beers, administrator of Cravener, an<|^J. Keenan, was properly rejected by the court. It was totally irrelevant to the issue, and could not have had any legitimate influence on the result.
The instruction of the court, which is assigned for error, is right. One for whose use and benefit a promise is made, if upon sufficient consideration, may maintain an action upon it; 2 Watts, 104; 17 Mass. Rep. 400; 4 Watts, 134. Keenan sold his property at a vendue, and in consideration that he would assign and transfer these notes to the defendant, he agreed to pay…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Arnold v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Hind v. HoldshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Eisenbise v. EisenbiseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
3Cited by3 opinions
- Greene County v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- System Co. v. Lycoming Foundry & Machine Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Mallalieu's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910