Reuter v. Moskovitz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 370, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1911, No. 1422, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Erland Reuter, a minor by his next friend and father, G. Frederick E. Reuter, and G. Frederick E. Reuter v. Max Moskovitz. Assumpsit on an insolvent’s bond. Before Martin, J. From the record it appeared that plaintiffs recovered a verdict in an action of trespass against Samuel Zusen.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 370, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1911, No. 1422, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Erland Reuter, a minor by his next friend and father, G. Frederick E. Reuter, and G. Frederick E. Reuter v. Max Moskovitz. Assumpsit on an insolvent’s bond. Before Martin, J. From the record it appeared that plaintiffs recovered a verdict in an action of trespass against Samuel Zusen. A ca. sa. was issued and Zusen was arrested. He presented a petition under the 5th Section of the Act of June 4,1901, P. L. 404, for a rule to show cause why he…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
A surety on a bond, given to secure the discharge of an insolvent, under the Act of June 4,1901, P. L. 404, should not be held liable beyond the precise terms of his undertaking, and it should not be extended by implication or intendment. It is limited by the condition of the bond. Under the insolvent Act of 1836, the bond should conform to the essential requirements of the act: McKee v. Stannard, 14 S. & R. 379. And this is so with respect to the Act of 1901.
The bond in this case was not in the form as provided by the act of assembly, and its condition was absolutely *231une…