Branson v. Kitchenman

Citations

• 148 Pa. 541
• 24 A. 61
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1022

Syllabus

<p>Statute of frauds — •Promise to pay the debt of another.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff’s testimony was to the effect that defendant, who held a senior judgment against the property of a debtor of both, promised that after buying in the property at a sheriff’s sale which was about to take place, he would pay off plaintiff’s judgment, which was a junior incumbrance, the alleged promise was clearly an undertaking to pay the debt of another without consideration, and the jury should have been instructed that the alleged agreement was void under the statute of frauds.</p> <p>Evidence — Irrelevant testimony.</p> <p>Upon a trial of the issue, whether defendant promised that after purchasing property at sheriff’s sale he would pay to plaintiff the debt due him by the defendant in the execution, evidence of the value of the machinery purchased by the defendant is irrelevant to the issue and should be excluded.</p> <p>Charge of the court — Assuming facts in dispute.</p> <p>The question at issue being whether defendant had promised to pay a debt to plaintiff, which was denied by defendant, the court in charging the jury said: “In this situation of affairs there was an agreement of some kind made between the plaintiff and defendant, and a serious question which you are called upon to determine in this case is as to what was that agreement: ”</p> <p>Held to be error: The instruction was misleading, since the question was whether any such agreement existed and the fact of its existence was for the jury, but was assumed by the court in the above instruction.</p>