Ege v. Barnitz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Court of Common. Pleas of Cumberland county. June 7. Jacob Barnitz, the defendant in error, brought case in assumpsit against A. G. Ege, the plaintiff in error, on the guaranty of a bond.
Read the full summary
In error from the Court of Common. Pleas of Cumberland county. June 7. Jacob Barnitz, the defendant in error, brought case in assumpsit against A. G. Ege, the plaintiff in error, on the guaranty of a bond. It appeared from the evidence, as disclosed by the paper-hoolc, that C. N. Ege and A. G. Ege were, with others, children and legatees under the will of Michael Ege, deceased, which was proved on the 5th of March, 1827. The testator, by his will, appointed his executors trustees to superintend, manage, and cany on his estate, called the “ Carlisle Iron Works,” with all the lands, mills, and…
1Opinion of the CourtCoulter, J.
The court below cast this case mainly on the single point that, by the writing of Ege, dated the 24th December, 1839, addressed to Barnitz, tbe duty or obligation resting on Barnitz to use due diligence in prosecuting to recovery the bond assigned by Ege to Barnitz, was waived; and that thereby tbe stipulation of guaranty became absolute for tbe payment of the money. The writing requested Barnitz not to bring suit, adding, “As it is not my desire to have an action brought on the bond.” The use of due diligence by the guarantee, is for the benefit of the guarantor; and he may waive it, as he…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Penney's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893