Reilly v. McCray
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Del. Co., June T., 1913, No. 391, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Sarah Ann Reilly v. Heston D. McCray who with Martin B. Bunyea was late trading as Bunyea and McCray and the Delaware County Trust Safe Deposit and Title Insurance Company. Assumpsit on a bond.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 212, Oct. T., 1915, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Del. Co., June T., 1913, No. 391, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Sarah Ann Reilly v. Heston D. McCray who with Martin B. Bunyea was late trading as Bunyea and McCray and the Delaware County Trust Safe Deposit and Title Insurance Company. Assumpsit on a bond. Before Johnson, P. J. Prom the record it appeared that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants, a firm of builders, by which the latter were to build for her a brick store and dwelling in part payment of which she was to convey to them a dwelling…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by'
Hendebson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action was brought to enforce the terms of a bond given by the defendants to her to secure the performance of a contract between her and the principals in the bond. She contends that the bond was security for the performance by the principals of all of the covenants and undertakings to which they were committed by the written contract to which the bond is related. The position thus taken requires a resort to the contract for an interpretation of the bond. It is conceded in the appellant’s argument that the bond by its express terms does not bind either…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dunbar v. FleisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- New Holland Dairies, Inc. v. Regent Dairy Products Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934