Paul v. Stackhouse
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Bucles county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought August 11th 1860, by Elizabeth Stackhouse to the use of Miles Shin against Morris Paul, on a promissory note. To a declaration in the usual form the defendant pleaded non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Common Pleas of Bucles county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought August 11th 1860, by Elizabeth Stackhouse to the use of Miles Shin against Morris Paul, on a promissory note. To a declaration in the usual form the defendant pleaded non assumpsit. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the following promissory note:— “ Warminster, 4th mo. 2d 1857. £t One year after date I promise to pay to Elizabeth Stack-house the sum of three hundred dollars, for value received, with lawful interest until paid. ' Elwood Sprogle. Morris Paul.” The interest for two years had been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Woodward, J.
— The contract of suretyship rests necessarily upon a consideration that is valuable. The consideration may be in the form of an inconvenience to the party promised, or of an advantage to be gained by either the principal debtor or the surety, and it may be ever so slight; but in the one form or the other, a consideration which the law denominates valuable, must be proved, or a surety cannot be made legally liable. What is called a moral obligation, is insufficient to support the promise of a surety. It is often said in the books, as was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. WareNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by10 opinions
- Stelmack v. Glen Alden Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Deeter v. Dull Corp., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Miners State Bank v. AuksztokalnisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Farren v. McNultySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Cowles Publishing Co. v. McMannWashington Supreme Court · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.