Wright v. Weakly
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to Cumberland county. This was an action of debt by Samuel B. Wright, administrator of Moses Leas deceased, against William Weakly, upon this note: “ Six days after date we, or either of us, promise to pay Samuel B. Wright, administrator of Moses Leas deceased, the sum of 95 dollars, without defalcation, value received. Witness our hands and seals this 23d of October 1827. “For Israel Downing, [l. s.], “William Weakly, [l. s.]. “Witness, John Wright.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to Cumberland county. This was an action of debt by Samuel B. Wright, administrator of Moses Leas deceased, against William Weakly, upon this note: “ Six days after date we, or either of us, promise to pay Samuel B. Wright, administrator of Moses Leas deceased, the sum of 95 dollars, without defalcation, value received. Witness our hands and seals this 23d of October 1827. “For Israel Downing, [l. s.], “William Weakly, [l. s.]. “Witness, John Wright.” On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff called the subscribing witness, and offered to prove by him, that William Weakly signed, sealed,…
1Per curiam
If the parol evidence was offered to explain the patent ambiguity in the discrepance between the general obligatory *90terms in the body of the writing, and the qualified terms of the act of execution, it was clearly inadmissible. But the form of execution being the matter which governs the construction in cases of this sort, as has just been intimated, in Campbell v. Baker, (ante p. 83), and the defendanthavingsigned the names at the foot of the writing, in the relation of principal and surety, it is certain that the former alone would be bound, independently of extrinsic circumstances. Would…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clark v. SidwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1892