Skip to main content
· 1/3/1916

Siegel & Co. v. Baily

Citations

  • 252 Pa. 231
  • 97 A. 401
  • 1916 Pa. LEXIS 599

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Construction — Suretyship — Offer — Acceptance —■ Notice.</p> <p>1. A guaranty of a contract implies that it was a concurrent act and part of the original agreement. Where a guaranty of a lease bears even date therewith and is attached thereto, it will be presumed to have been accepted by the landlord when the lease was executed, and, in an action thereon, the jury is properly instructed that no further notice on the part of the landlord, of his acceptance of the guaranty, is necessary to fix the surety’s liability.</p> <p>Landlord and tenant — Distraint—Release of goods — Execution on fi. fa. — Bankruptcy of lessee — Partial payment.</p> <p>2. After a landlord has distrained for the rent of a hotel property, it is not an eviction if the landlord agrees with the lessee’s wife in the lessee’s presence, and with his acquiescence, that the wife should continue to conduct the hotel for a limited period.</p> <p>3. In an action against the surety on a lease, it appeared that plaintiff had proceeded against the property of a tenant under a fi. fa. and had thereafter upon a claim of property by the tenant’s wife released the goods and seized them under a landlord’s warrant, and that subsequently the lessee had been declared a bankrupt and that the property levied on had been seized by the Federal Court; defendant contended that it was discharged from liability by the release of the goods from the lien of the fi. fa. and also sought to set off against plaintiff’s claim the value of the goods which had been seized under the order of the Federal Court in the bankruptcy proceedings. The lower court decided that .the release of the goods from the fi. fa. and the levying of them under the landlord’s warrant was beneficial to the surety and did not discharge him from liability, and that the taking of the property by the Federal Court was a valid defense to defendant’s claim of set off, and allowed defendant credit for nothing more than the actual amount received by

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

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.