Williams v. Myers
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 166, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 259, discharging rule for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a special contract. Plaintiff’s statement alleged: That defendant was the general contractor for a building. Thomas Brown was the contractor for the plumbing, with whom M. E. Williams, the plaintiff, contracted to do certain slate work in and about the said building.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 166, Nov. T., 1896, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1896, No. 259, discharging rule for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit on a special contract. Plaintiff’s statement alleged: That defendant was the general contractor for a building. Thomas Brown was the contractor for the plumbing, with whom M. E. Williams, the plaintiff, contracted to do certain slate work in and about the said building. That, before any work was done by plaintiff, Brown became insolvent and plaintiff declined to go on, whereupon defendant agreed to assume…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
It is very difficult to discuss this case seriously. The defendant’s liability, if any, arose out of an express promise, that, if *484the plaintiff would perform her contract with Brown, he, the defendant, would assume Brown’s liability for the moneys to be paid the plaintiff thereunder. But the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant did “ verbally state that he would assume all liability upon the aforesaid contract,” and that the defendant requested the plaintiff to do the work for him, and that she did the work for him, are clearly, explicitly and unequivocally denied.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hutton v. McLaughlinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Barker v. FairchildSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Galey v. FitzpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Spencer v. KeelerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899