Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson

Citations

• 63 Pa. Super. 294
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 154

Syllabus

<p>Practice, Supreme Gourt — Paper boohs — Printing of evidence— Suppression of record.</p> <p>Where a case’ is tried twice, and after the sec'ond trial an appeal is taken in which the assignments of error relate wholly to what occurred at the second trial, the fact that the appellant prints in the appendix of his paper book the evidence taken at the first trial, is no ground for suppressing the record as violating Eule 17, Par. 10, of the Superior Court Eules.</p> <p>Principal and surety — Guaranty—Contract—Later instrument.</p> <p>Although a surety is usually bound with his principal in the same instrument at the same time, and on the same consideration, ther,e is nothing in law which prevents, one from becoming bound as surety in a separate instrument executed at a later time either under seal, or upon .a new consideration, and there is nothing in reason for giving to these circumstances the effect of converting a clearly expressed engagement to pay the debt when due, if the principal debtor does not enter into a mere engagement to pay in default of solvency in the debtor. s</p> <p>Where a person executes a writing under seal in which he recites that “for a valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged” he hereby guarantees “payment of the amount specified in a certain order” placed by a certain corporation on a prior date specified “in accordance with the terms and conditions recited therein,” and the order specifies the time of payment, the obligation so signed will be construed as a contract of suretyship, and not a contract of guaranty.</p> <p>Principal and surety — Set-off—Counterclaim—Parties.</p> <p>Where a person is sued on a contract of suretyship he cannot set up as a defense a counterclaim for unliquidated damages which his principal has against the plaintiff, where such claim is greater in amount than that involved in the suit, and there is nothing to show that the claim had been assigned to the defendant, or that he has the cons