Legal Opinion

Flocker v. Sirlin

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 27, 1931No. Appeal 70Published

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Plaintiff sued for rent due by a lease on the back of which defendant became surety. It was not denied that rent was due. Defendant contended that his signature was obtained by fraud that allowed him to set aside the contract. The learned trial judge gave binding instructions for the plaintiff in the amount due with interest, $618.14, on the ground that the evidence offered by defendant to set aside his contract was not clear, precise and indubitable within the rule applicable.

The lease and the contract of suretyship were executed on a printed form, the lease being signed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ralston v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  2. Miller's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Leonard v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. Baranski v. WilmsenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
  5. Morneweck v. Western & Southern Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API