Bennett v. Haley
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County
No. 28 July Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 307 December Term 1889, C. P On November 19, 1889, E.. C. Haley and James Haley presented their petition averring: That a judgment had been entered against tbe petitioners on a bond dated September 8, 1887, given by them to T. M. P. Bennett and D. C. Pennewiil, trading as Bennett, Pennewill & Co., conditioned to indemnify said firm for all moneys wliicb, after said date, should be received and collected by said E. C. Haley,…
Read the full summary
No. 28 July Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 307 December Term 1889, C. P On November 19, 1889, E.. C. Haley and James Haley presented their petition averring: That a judgment had been entered against tbe petitioners on a bond dated September 8, 1887, given by them to T. M. P. Bennett and D. C. Pennewiil, trading as Bennett, Pennewill & Co., conditioned to indemnify said firm for all moneys wliicb, after said date, should be received and collected by said E. C. Haley, as their traveling salesman; That, after the giving of said bond, the said E. C, Haley, as plaintiffs’ salesman, bad sold…
1Per curiam
The single complaint here is that the court below erred in striking appellants’ judgment from the record. The judgment was entered upon a warrant of attorney accompanying a cautionary bond given by Edward C. Haley to the plaintiffs, with James Haley as surety. The bond, after reciting the employment of Edward C. Haley by plaintiffs’ firm as a traveling salesman, contains this condition:
“ Now, the condition of the foregoing obligation is such that if the said Edward C. Haley shall and will, whenever he from any cause ceases to be in the employment, or whenever called to do so by the said…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rome Sales & Service Station v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Bassick Co. v. Bright, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1926