Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1896

Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann

Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided January 27, 1896 · Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams
173 Pa. 392; 34 A. 67; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 715

Putnam Machine Co. v. Cann

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

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-. *395well as the spirit of the act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 809. There was therefore no error in entering judgment for the defendants on the demurrer to plaintiff’s statement.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.