Shoemaker v. King
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to January Term 1860, No. 15, by Anthony King against John J. Shoemaker, in which, on the issue raised by the plea, the jury found the following special verdict:— “ The jury find that the firm of Harper & Reese owed Anthony King, the plaintiff, $130.59 on the 18th of June 1859. Prior to that time the firm owed the defendant, Shoemaker, $485, for which they gave him their judgment, made part…
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Dauphin county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to January Term 1860, No. 15, by Anthony King against John J. Shoemaker, in which, on the issue raised by the plea, the jury found the following special verdict:— “ The jury find that the firm of Harper & Reese owed Anthony King, the plaintiff, $130.59 on the 18th of June 1859. Prior to that time the firm owed the defendant, Shoemaker, $485, for which they gave him their judgment, made part of this finding. They also gave said Shoemaker a mortgage for $1000, to cover future expected advances, but none were…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Lowrie, C. J.
Harper & Reese sold out their partnership effects to Shoemaker, he agreeing verbally with them to pay their firm debts. King holds one of these firm debts and sues *110for it, relying on the contract just stated, and not showing that he was a party to it. Can he recover ?
We think that the Act of 26th April 1855, § 1, forbids it by declaring that no action shall be brought to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt or default of another, unless the agreement be in writing and signed by the party to be charged.
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Beach v. HungerfordNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Mersereau v. LewisNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ash v. WernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Riland v. SchaefferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911