Skip to main content
· 2/2/1920

Philadelphia v. Ray

Citations

  • 266 Pa. 345
  • 109 A. 689
  • 1920 Pa. LEXIS 570

Syllabus

<p>Principal and surety — Corporation acting as surety for profit — Change in contract — Defense.</p> <p>1. A corporation engaged in the business of suretyship for profit, can not successfully defend merely because of a change in the contract insured; it must prove the change was material and prejudicial.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Parol evidence — Credibility of witness for jury.</p> <p>2. Where the evidence is in parol, and the parties do not agree otherwise, the credibility of the witnesses must be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Statement of questions involved — Assignments of error — Exceptions—Quoting record.</p> <p>3. The only matters reviewable by the Supreme Court are those referred to in the statement of questions involved.</p> <p>4. Assignments of error to portions of the charge which are not supported by exceptions, will be overruled.</p> <p>5. Assignments of error specifying alleged error without quoting the record, will be overruled.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • hotel name was a fixed trade name applicable to hotel premises and was not a transitory name capable of adoption by an individual intending to open another hotel using that name

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Mosch, Simpson, Walling, Zisker

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.