Gano v. Lidalia Coal Co.

Citations

• 65 Pa. Super. 226
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 49

Syllabus

<p>Principal and surety — Bond—Suspension of an injunction order —Liability of surety.</p> <p>Where, on a bill in equity, it appears that the defendant, a coal company, had agreed with the plaintiff to ship its whole output to parties designated by the plaintiff who has to collect the proceeds of the sales, deduct commissions, and remit the balance to the defendant, and it also appears that the court had issued against the defendant an injunction order restraining it from shipping coal to other parties than those designated by the plaintiff, and that the court subsequently suspended the injunction, on the defendant’s filing a bond conditioned “for the protection of the proper interests of the plaintiff,” and the 'bond entered was conditioned to protect the plaintiff from any loss that might be sustained “by reason of the said suspension of the said injunction,” the surety on the bond thus entered will be liable for a loss sustained by the plaintiff by reason of improper shipments of coal by the defendant after the bond was entered.</p>