Allen Iron & Steel Co. v. Provident Iron & Steel Co.

Citations

• 63 Pa. Super. 459
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 189

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Alteration of written'instrument — Bond—-Principal and surety — Evidence—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>In a suit upon a bond to guarantee the performance of a contract which was alleged to have consisted of a letter containing an offer and a letter containing acceptance, both of which were alleged to have been attached to and made part of the bond, the question whether there had been an actual alteration of the contract is for the jury where the evidence is conflicting as to whether one of the letters was attached to the bond when it was delivered to the obligee, and was tom from it by the latter’s representative. The question whether the alteration, if made, was a material one, was a question of law for the court.</p> <p>In such a case where the papers taken together indicated that the obligor considered the letter torn ofE a material part of the contract, the bond is void and cannot be enforced against the surety, if it was torn off without the consent of the obligor, or without his subsequent ratification.</p> <p>In an action against a contractor and his surety where the plaintiff seeks to recover a certain sum for labor required to be employed in consequence of the defendant’s breach of contract, the plaintiff may recover the reasonable cost of the labor, and this may be ascertained by adding to the wages actually paid a proper amount for overhead expenses, provided that no profit on the wages is included.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Comment of counsel.</p> <p>Where an affidavit of defense has not been placed in evidence, an alleged impropriety in the manner in which it was prepared, is not a legitimate subject of comment by counsel.</p>