Robinson v. Connell

• Decision Date: 24 March 1913
• Docket Number: 401
• Citation: 240 Pa. 96,87 A. 300
• Parties: Robinson, Appellant, v. Connell
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

87 A. 300

240 Pa. 96

Robinson, Appellant, v. Connell

No. 401

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 24, 1913

Argued February 26, 1913

Appeal, No. 401, Jan. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1912, No. 567, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Mina Robinson v. W. L. Connell. Affirmed.

Assumpsit upon a contract in writing. Before EDWARDS, P.J.

The contract was as follows:

"SCRANTON PA., April 1st, 1902.

"Whereas Mrs. Mina Robinson has purchased from the undersigned fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) of the first Mt'g bonds of the Consolidated Telephone Company of Pennsylvania for the sum of thirteen thousand five hundred dollars ($13,500.00) and accrued interest.

"It being expressly understood and agreed, that the undersigned shall have the right to repurchase the said bonds at the price paid for the same to wit: twelve thousand dollars and accrued interest.

"In consideration thereof, the undersigned agree to guarantee the interest and principal of said bonds while held and in the possession of the said Mrs. Mina Robinson.

"In witness whereof we place our hand and seal this 1st day of April, 1902.

"W. L. CONNELL,

"E. J. ROBINSON."

"In the presence of

"ARCHIE MOSES,

"Interpolation made by

"W. L. CONNELL."

The plaintiff in her statement of claim alleged default on the bonds which she still held in her possession.

The defendant filed an affidavit of defense in which she averred, inter alia, as follows:

The bonds which I sold to the plaintiff, the principal and interest of which I guaranteed, are valid, and the obligor therein, to wit: the Consolidated Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, I am informed is solvent and the bonds are well secured. The plaintiff has made no effort to collect upon the obligations hereinabove mentioned sold by me to her and has used no diligence looking to the recovery from the said Consolidated Telephone Company for the amount secured by the said bonds.

The plaintiff has suffered no loss whatever arising out of the transaction hereinabove mentioned, and defendant avers that no loss is probable in his judgment.

I deny that I am liable to pay Mina Robinson anything whatever for or on account of the subject matter of this transaction.

The court discharged the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was in discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

S. B. Price, with him C. B. Price and J. H. Price, for appellant. -- It is a rule of Pennsylvania law that where the leading object of the promisor is to subserve some interest or purpose of his own, notwithstanding the effect is to pay or discharge the debt of another, his promise is an original undertaking: Nugent v. Wolfe, 111 Pa. 471; Fehlinger v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517; May v. Walker, 20 Pa.Super. 581; Bailey v. Marshall, 174 Pa. 602; Crawford v. Pyle, 190 Pa. 263; Elkin v. Timlin, 151 Pa. 491; Phipps v. Sharps, 142 Pa. 597.

H. R Van Deusen and H. C. Reynolds, for appellee. -- The contract...