Legal Opinion

McKeesport National Bank v. Rosenthal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 23, 1986No. 782PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

Where the obligation of a surety is absolute and unconditional, is it subject to extinguishment or reduction because the obligee has failed to exercise diligence in collecting accounts receivable which have been assigned by the principal debtor as security for the indebtedness? The trial court held that the creditor’s failure to exercise diligence to enforce the accounts receivable constituted a defense to the surety’s liability. Therefore, the court opened a judgment confessed against the surety after a default by the principal debtor. We reverse.

North American Trading Company…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. LototskyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. First Seneca Bank & Trust Co. v. Laurel Mountain Development Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Paul Revere Protective Life Insurance v. WeisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Continental Leasing Corp. v. LEBOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  5. Franklin Savings & Trust Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Meeting House Lane, Ltd. v. MelsoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Century 21 Products v. Glacier SalesWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Duque v. D'ANGELISSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Century 21 Products, Inc. v. SalesWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Century 21 Products, Inc. v. Glacier SalesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API