Allen Iron & Steel Co. v. Provident Iron & Steel Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 2900, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Allen Iron & Steel Co. v. Provident Iron & Steel Co. and National Surety Company. Assumpsit on two bonds. Before Carr, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. At the. trial the court refused binding instructions for defendant, the National Surety Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 225, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1910, No. 2900, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Allen Iron & Steel Co. v. Provident Iron & Steel Co. and National Surety Company. Assumpsit on two bonds. Before Carr, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. At the. trial the court refused binding instructions for defendant, the National Surety Company. At the conclusion of the trial the following objection was made: “Mr. White: I object to Mr. Carr’s statement to the jury that the National Surety Company, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This action of assumpsit was founded in part on two bonds in the penal sum of $500.00 each, whereby National Surety Company, the appellant, became bound to Allen Iron & Steel Company, the appellee, as surety for Provident Iron & Steel Company for the performance by the latter of two contracts it had entered into with the appellee — one relating to the Meadville post office, and the other to the Hagerstown post office. Each of these bonds was drawn for execution by Provident Company as principal and by the appellant as surety, but was only executed by the latter. For present…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Colonial Trust Co. v. GetzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Holt v. PieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Selig v. RehfussSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900