Ulam v. Boyd
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 64. Covenant by S. S. Boyd against J. C. Ulam, J. A. Armstrong and A. M. Gosser upon the following agreement: “Article of agreement made and entered into by and between J. C. Ulam, J. A. Armstrong and A. M. Gosser (committee) and S. S. Boyd, all of Leechburg, Pa., Witnesseth that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of said second party repairing and…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 64. Covenant by S. S. Boyd against J. C. Ulam, J. A. Armstrong and A. M. Gosser upon the following agreement: “Article of agreement made and entered into by and between J. C. Ulam, J. A. Armstrong and A. M. Gosser (committee) and S. S. Boyd, all of Leechburg, Pa., Witnesseth that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of said second party repairing and strenghtening the Leechburg bridge, according to his agreement with the Bridge Co., they will pay or cause to be paid to him the…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered
2Per curiam
The defendants below clearly made themselves responsible personally under their contract with the plaintiff. Their describing themselves a “ committee” did not change the very express language of the agreement which in every part of it is personal to themselves, and not applicable to any principal, and which they confirmed by their own seals. If we were sent out in search of a principal, to whom could we go ? The subscription-list created no joint responsibility, and the plaintiffs could not be remitted to thirty or forty suits for small sums. The…
3Cited by2 opinions
- Strauss & Co. v. BermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Williams v. HippieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901