Emerson v. Graff
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Indiana county. This was an action of assumpsit by John Graff, against Edward P. Emerson, upon the following writing: — ■ “ I do agree, provided John Graff sees fit to take twenty shares of additional stock to his present subscription, to pay any loss he may sustain — provided, however, that the same does not amount to move than five dollars on each share, and if the loss on each share does not amount to five dollars on each share, I am only to…
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Indiana county. This was an action of assumpsit by John Graff, against Edward P. Emerson, upon the following writing: — ■ “ I do agree, provided John Graff sees fit to take twenty shares of additional stock to his present subscription, to pay any loss he may sustain — provided, however, that the same does not amount to move than five dollars on each share, and if the loss on each share does not amount to five dollars on each share, I am only to be held for any amount under, but nothing'over, by way of interest or otherwise, and in case I see fit, I am at liberty…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lowrie, J.
The relation of these parties is to be ascertained from the writing given in evidence as the ground of the action. That, we are satisfied, is a mere offer or proposal, and not, by itself, a contract. The plaintiff below could not therefore rely on it, as a contract, without showing that defendant was duly notified or informed of his acceptance of it: Pitman on Prin. and Surety, 28, &c. The court below was in error in giving the instrument an interpretation as an absolute contract.
And suppose the plaintiff did give the defendant notice; then…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. AllebachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Achenbach v. KurtzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Claro Milling Co. v. Davis Bros., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1918