Skip to main content
· 6/26/1920

Tasin v. Bastress

Citations

  • 268 Pa. 85
  • 110 A. 744
  • 1920 Pa. LEXIS 632

Syllabus

<p>Promissory notes — Evidence—Case for jury — Contract—Statute of limitations — Statute of frauds — Original undertalcing.</p> <p>1. In an action founded on a promissory note, a judgment on a verdict for plaintiffs will be sustained, where the evidence for plaintiffs tended to show that defendant had agreed, for a consideration to pay the note in suit, under an agreement by which the defendant undertook to pay certain indebtedness owing by himself and associates to plaintiffs in pursuance of a settlement of a suit brought against defendant by his associates to recover a share of certain profits, and that this indebtedness had never been paid.</p> <p>2. In such a case where it appears that defendant had agreed, in order to pay the indebtedness, to raise funds by selling certain property belonging to plaintiffs, no cause of action arose until the expiration of a reasonable time within which defendant might carry out the arrangement to sell the property. The statute of limitations therefore did not run against the suit based on the note until that time, although the note by its terms was more than six years due.</p> <p>3. Where in such case, it appears that the consideration for defendant’s promise was the- release of plaintiff’s claim against him for certain commissions, plaintiffs may sue defendant on one of the notes in question, although not parties thereto, nor to the agreement between defendant and his associates. A contractual relation existed between the parties, defendant’s undertaking being an original one, supported by a consideration moving' from plaintiffs consisting of the retention of the commissions in defendant’s hands.</p> <p>4. Neither is the agreement within the statute of frauds, inasmuch as defendant, by virtue of the transaction, made the debt his own; hence the case is not one of a mere promise to pay the debt of another.</p> <p>Evidence — Written instrument — Parol evidence — Consideration ¡ — Contemporaneous parol agreement.</p> <p>5. Parol e

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Simpson, Stewart, Walling

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.