Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 6/28/1889

Martin v. Frantz

Citations

  • 127 Pa. 389
  • 18 A. 20
  • 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1127

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. An agreement — without other consideration — to accept a smaller sum in satisfaction of a larger one, presently due, cannot be enforced, and the actual acceptance of such smaller sum is not a good discharge of the debt, even as accord and satisfaction.</p> <p>2. The fact that, after agreeing with one of two sureties, in consideration oí t)ie receipt of one half of the debt, to release him from further liability, the creditor allows the statute of limitations to bai- an action on the obligation against the other surety, discloses no consideration by way of detriment to the promisee, supporting the promise to release.</p> <p>3. A right of action for contribution between co-sureties does not arise until one of them has paid more than a due proportion of the debt, and until then the statute of limitations does not begin to run between them; wherefore, such right is unaffected by the fact that the statute may have barred any direct liability of the other surety to the creditor.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding that an ordinance obliging businesses to provide notices in advance of certain plant relocations, closures, or reductions in workforce violated predecessor provision substantially identical to the Business Exclusion
  • finding that an ordinance obliging businesses to provide notices in advance of certain plant relocations, closures, or reductions in workforce violated predecessor provision substantially identical to the Business Exclusion
  • finding that an ordinance obliging businesses to provide notices in advance of certain plant relocations, closures, or reductions in workforce violated predecessor provision substantially identical to the Business Exclusion
  • finding that an ordinance obliging businesses to provide notices in advance of certain plant relocations, closures, or reductions in workforce violated predecessor provision substantially identical to the Business Exclusion
  • finding that an ordinance obliging businesses to provide notices in advance of certain plant relocations, closures, or reductions in workforce violated predecessor provision substantially identical to the Business Exclusion
  • invalidating provision that directed companies to provide the city with notice of certain planned business moves that would affect local employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.