United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Hirst
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 228, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 3770, on verdict for plaintiff in case of United Shoe Machinery Company v. Anthony A. Hirst. Assumpsit on a surety bond. Before Rogers, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $37. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, among others, was in overruling motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff company leased to John McBrearty, under nine distinct leases, twenty-three patented shoe manufacturing machines. Under these leases the term might have extended for seventeen years, but it was within the discretion of the plaintiff to terminate it at an earlier date. The defendant, Hirst, under a separate written agreement, became surety for the faithful performance by McBrearty of all the terms, conditions, stipulations and obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of the several leases for the term of one year, and further covenanted, upon the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stewart v. TurnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917