Warnick v. Grosholz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of- Philadelphia. Assumpsit.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered
by Woodward, J.
The plaintiffs count not upon a contract of guaranty, but on a direct assumption or undertaking of the defendant to them, and the evidence on which they relied to charge the defendant was his declaration as proved by Cochrane — “Go on with the work, that he had security for the building, and he would see it paid.”
They had commenced the work under a contract with Barber, the builder, b.ut he failing to do the work for them, which was to compensate them for the painting of the defendant’s cottage, they had refused to proceed with the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Herring v. WeinrothSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Walker v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876