Duffee v. Mansfield
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 125 September Term 1890, C. P. No. 1. On September 12, 1890, an appeal by the defendant was entered 'from the judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of Mary A. Duffee against William H. Mansfield.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OP PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. January Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 125 September Term 1890, C. P. No. 1. On September 12, 1890, an appeal by the defendant was entered 'from the judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of Mary A. Duffee against William H. Mansfield. On November 15th, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim to recover $60, being one month’s rent of No. 816 Walnut street, due August 7,1890, and interest, averring that the claim was founded upon a certain lease under date November 7,1887, wherein the lessee, George…
1Per curiam
The defendant contends that the lease from Mary A. Duffee, trustee, to George A. Hineken, which he signed as surety, is not in law a lease for five years, because it is not signed by the lessor. For this reason he claims to be discharged as surety. We need not discuss the legal effect of the omission of the lessor to sign the paper. It has no bearing upon the case. The lessee entered under the lease. So long as he remains in possession the surety is liable. His obligation is “ to be responsible to the above-named lessor for the true and faithful performance of the above contracts, covenants,…
2Cited by64 opinions
- Dean v. HershowitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Michaud v. GurneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Lopinto v. HainesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Sharkey v. SkiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.