Flinn v. M'Gonigle
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Lancaster county. Bernard M’Gonigle against Bernard Flinn. The facts of this case are so fully stated in the opinion of the court as to render any other statement of them unnecessary. argued that the present plaintiff could not maintain the action, and" cited 7 Peters 492; 15 Ser#. & Rawle 107; 8 Watts 382. on the same point, cited 4 Wend. 414; 1 Chit. PI. 2-5; 4 Wharl. 72; 6 Watts 182.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Burnside, J.
This was an action of covenant, in which the plaintiff below declared on the following deed :—“ Whereas, Ber*76nard M’Gonigle did, on the 26th day of November last (1841), become the surety of Bernard O’Conner in four respective notes, (bills single), each for the sum of $400, to John Masterson, Patrick O’Conner, Francis Keennan and Patrick Brady : Now be it known by these presents, that I, Bernard Flinn, of Lancaster township, in the county of Lancaster, do for myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, promise and agree to become the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brenner v. LesherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Ardesco Oil Co. v. GilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Elwell v. MersickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882
- McGinniss v. SawyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870