Denniston v. Schaal
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 1114, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 1114, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Suit was brought on the following guaranty: “To Denniston and DeArmond, importers and jobbers in upholstery goods and cabinet' hardware, 925 Rementer Street, Philadelphia, May 10, 1890, 1 hereby guarantee the account of George Schall with Denniston and DeArmond to the amount of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($150), and will be responsible for the payment of the same. Caroline Schaal. “727 McKean…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The material part of the guaranty on which this action was brought reads as follows: “ I hereby guarantee the account of George Schaal with Denniston & DeArmond to the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) and will be responsible for payment of the same.” One called upon to determine the defendant’s liability under this paper would naturally inquire what account was referred to. Was it an existing account or *635an account about to be opened ? If the latter, did the principals contemplate a credit indefinite as to amount and as to time, or a single purchase or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Anderson v. BlakelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Pritchett, Baugh & Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kast v. Jackson & Moyer, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Ruck v. VassalottiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- City of Philadelphia v. N. Snellenburg & Co.Pennylvania Municipal Court, Philadelphia County · 1947
- National Surety Co. v. Schultz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County1923