Curry v. Larer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Pleas of Schuylkill. April 4. Debt. Salmon, by agreement under seal, had covenanted to deliver two boat-loads of coal, weighing sixty tons, to Larer, before two certain days, in consideration of the assignment of an unexpired term in certain coal lands.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Pleas of Schuylkill. April 4. Debt. Salmon, by agreement under seal, had covenanted to deliver two boat-loads of coal, weighing sixty tons, to Larer, before two certain days, in consideration of the assignment of an unexpired term in certain coal lands. On the same day, Curry, by a separate sealed agreement, “ bound himself in the sum of $240, as security for the above-named Salmon, that he will well and truly perform all the covenants and agreements mentioned, and in default of Salmon not delivering the above-mentioned two boat-loads of coal to the said Larer, or…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The agreement between Daniel Larer and Michael Salmon, and the guaranty of Patrick Curry, ought to be construed as one, being made at the same time, in relation to the same subject-matter, and by the same parties: 10 Pick. *471250; and especially as the guaranty is, “ that Curry, as security for the above Michael Salmon, binds himself that Salmon shall well and truly perform all the above-mentioned covenants and agreements.” We cannot escape, therefore, from the conclusion, that the surety contemplated at the time, that Salmon was to have all the benefits of his covenants, and that if he…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tayloe v. T. & S. SandifordSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Cutler v. HowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Perkins v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Spencer v. TildenNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Gleason v. PinneyNew York Supreme Court · 1825