Miller v. Eccles

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Miller v. Eccles, 155 Pa. 36 (Pa. 1893)
25 A. 776; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1176
Green, Heydrick, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Miller v. Eccles

Opinion of the Court

Per, Curiam,

The appellant, James M. Eccles, became the surety of H. L. McLean upon a building contract which the latter had entered into with a Mr. Miller. Upon that contract the appellant indorsed a guarantee that Mr. McLean would well and faithfully perform his part of the contract. The suit below was brought upon that guarantee.

The appellant defends upon two grounds. He contends in the first place that he is not bound, because Mr. Miller paid the money to his contractor more rapidly than he should have done. We fail to see any force in this objection. The contract between Mr. Eccles and Mr. Miller does not specify when the money was to be paid. There was nothing to prevent Mr. Miller paying the money as it was wanted by his contractor, unless he had been notified that the latter was not performing his contract, and that by such payment the surety would be put in peril. There is no evidence that the mode of payment affected in any way the legal rights of the surety. It was also contended that the contract between McLean and Miller had been modified in material parts. If there was any change in the contract that would affect the surety, or increase his liability, he would be discharged. The contract, however, provides that changes may be made, and if the modifications referred to were covered by the contract, the appellant has no cause of complaint. This question was fairly submitted to the jury under proper instructions.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Guaranty—Discharge of guarantor—Building contract—Payments. If a building contract providing for a round sum does not stipulate for the time when payment shall be made, the guarantor of the contract is not discharged by the owner making payments to the contractor as the work progresses, and before it is completed. A guaranty for the faithful performance of a contract to furnish all labor and material covers damages on account of the payment of a mechanic’s lien by the owner. Discharge by alteration of contract—Change in details. Where such a contract provides that modifications or changes may be made as to the details, but not as to the general construction of the building, a change maybe made in the details without discharging the guarantor, and it is proper to leave the question of the changes to the jury.