Phoenix Mill Co. v. Kresge
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1916, by last two defendants, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 313, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of The Phoenix Mill Company, a corporation, v. Amos Kresge, Austin Blakeslee and George B. McClelland. Assumpsit on a surety bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, Jan. T., 1916, by last two defendants, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1911, No. 313, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of The Phoenix Mill Company, a corporation, v. Amos Kresge, Austin Blakeslee and George B. McClelland. Assumpsit on a surety bond. Before Bell, P. J. From the record it appears that the bond in suit is as follows: “Know all men by these presents: That I, Amos Kresge, as principal, of DuBois, Pennsylvania, and Austin Blakeslee and George McClelland, as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto The Phoenix Mill Company (a corporation…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
This is an action of assumpsit on a bond, a copy of which appears in the reporter’s notes. The Phoenix Mill Company, the plaintiff, is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the general flour and milling business. In July, 1905, the company’s general agent in the State of New York appointed Kresge, one of the defendants, its local agent for the sale of its goods within certain territory allotted to him in that state. On the twenty-ninth day of that month, Kresge, with the other defendants, the appellants, executed and delivered to the plaintiff the bond in suit…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bell v. BruenSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- Bennehan v. . WebbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1845
- Dunham v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sheinman Bros. v. Hovland-Sardeson-McColm Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- New Holland Dairies, Inc. v. Regent Dairy Products Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934