Benedict v. Hood
Decision Date | 21 April 1890 |
Docket Number | 193 1/2 |
Citation | 19 A. 635,134 Pa. 289 |
Parties | E. H. BENEDICT v. J. E. HOOD |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 4, 1890
APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.
No. 193 1/2 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 4 December Term 1887, M.L.D., C.P.No. 2.
To the number and term of the court below, Edgar H. Benedict issued a scire facias, sur a mechanics' lien for plastering against James E. Wood, owner, and Joseph C. Pharaoh contractor. Issue.
At the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence the claim filed showing the amount due thereon to be $352.55, and rested. The defendants then showed that the building, a stone house on a corner of Gowen avenue and Ardleigh street, at Mount Airy had been erected under a contract between Joseph C. Pharaoh, of the first part and James E. Hood, defendant, of the second part, dated November 9, 1886, wherein the said Pharaoh covenanted:
". . . to well and sufficiently furnished and provide, at his own cost and without delay, all necessary work and materials for, and to erect, construct, and fully complete, for the said party of the second part, a stone house . . . according and in all respects conforming with the plans and specifications," etc.
Appended to the foregoing contract was the following guaranty:
"We, Edgar H. Benedict, Plasterer, 1933 Girard Avenue; Henry J. Keeler, Painter, 1749 Beechwood Street; T. H. Truitt, Plumbing and Gas-Fitting, 1809 Ridge Avenue, for and in consideration of the foregoing covenants and agreements made on the day of November, 1886, by the said James E. Hood, with our sanction, and at our request, and in the further consideration of one dollar unto us paid by the same James E. Hood at the time and execution hereof, the receipt of which we hereby acknowledge, do jointly and severally for ourselves, and for our and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, guarantee and become responsible to the said James E. Hood, without proceedings or suit first brought against the said Joseph C. Pharaoh, for the faithful performance of all covenants and agreements therein contained, to be kept and performed by the said Joseph C. Pharaoh, the party of the first part to this agreement."
This guaranty was signed and sealed by Keeler and others, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ward v. Nolde
... ... 347; Gannon v. Church, 173 Pa ... 242; Commonwealth Co. v. Ellis, 192 Pa. 321; ... Haine v. Dambach, 4 Pa. Co. Ct. 633; Benedict v ... Hood, 134 Pa. 289; Closson v. Billman, 161 Ind ... 610; McHenry v. Knickerbocker, 128 Ind. 77; ... Miller v. Taggart, 36 Ind.App ... ...
-
Waters v. Wolf
...v. Normal School, 2 Dist. R. 759 [affirmed; reported below]. The contract excluded all liens: Nice v. Walker, 153 Pa. 123; Benedict v. Hood, 134 Pa. 289. STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL, DEAN and THOMPSON, JJ. OPINION MR. JUSTICE DEAN: The plaintiff filed a mechanic's li......
-
Sullivan v. Hancock
...for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Henry J. Hancock, for appellant. -- The contract set up is almost in the words of Benedict v. Hood, 134 Pa. 289, except that the word " put" was intended to be in the place of " found." As to the mutual mistake averred in the affidavit of inser......
-
Dersheimer v. Maloney
...Cal. 170. Mr. John T. Lenahan (with him Mr. P. A. O'Boyle), for the appellee. Counsel cited: Schroeder v. Galland, 134 Pa. 277; Benedict v. Hood, 134 Pa. 289; Scheid Rapp, 121 Pa. 593; 2 Parsons on Cont., 501; Williamson v. McClure, 37 Pa. 408; Campbell v. Scaife, 1 Phila. 187; Harlan v. Ra......