Skip to main content
· 1/3/1916

Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Lippincott

Citations

  • 252 Pa. 112
  • 97 A. 201
  • 1916 Pa. LEXIS 579

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Bonds—Construction—Incorporation by reference— Statute of frauds — Agreement to pay debt of another — Parol evidence rule — .Evidence.</p> <p>1. The general rule that oral evidence cannot ordinarily be accepted to supply deficiencies in a writing sued upon does not prevent the admission of oral evidence to show the circumstances under which the contract was made, or to show to what subject-matter it applies.</p> <p>2. Separate writings may be connected by oral evidence provided they contain internal reference to each other.</p> <p>3. The memorandum required by the statute of frauds to charge a defendant for the debt or default of another may be on different papers, if one contains reference to the other. The subject-matter of such contract must appear from the writing, but it may be expressed in general terms, and parol evidence is admissible to identify it.</p> <p>4. Parol evidence cannot be admitted to show that certain words, not on their face a guarantee, do in fact constitute such. The entire guaranty of the debt of another must be in writing, but not the whole contract.</p> <p>5. In an action against the sureties of an indemnity bond given to secure the plaintiff company against loss by reason of its under-. taking as surety on the official bond of a tax collector, it appeared that the bond in suit recited that the plaintiff had become surety at defendant’s request on a bond, naming the amount, on which such tax collector was principal, obligated the parties in usual phraseology, was sealed and dated, named the principal and sureties as such, and stated the consideration, and the condition clause recited the fact that the signatories were to indemnify the plaintiff against all liability by reason of its suretyship under the other instrument, but failed to recite the year of the taxes therein referred to or the precise place where they were to be assessed and collected, but such particulars appeared in the other instrument, which was executed the

Judges: Brown, Izisker, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Mosci, Potter, Stewart

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.