Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
173 Pa. 392; 34 A. 67; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 715
Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
Opinion of the Court
So far as appears in the statement of claim, the alleged contract of the defendants with the plaintiff company was a secondary or collateral agreement as contradistinguished from a primary or original undertaking. It is virtually an agreement to answer' for the debt or default of the Penn Elevator Engineering Company ; and, not being in writing, it comes within the letter as-.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.