Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Pa. 327

Keyser v. Keen

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 2, 1851

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1851-02-02

This case came up from the Nisi Prim. It was a suit by Keen v. Keyser, on a joint and several bond. John E. Keen, in October, 1835, became surety to the sheriff of this county for one of his deputies, David Scattergood, in the sum of $6000. To secure himself against the loss which subsequently ensued, Mr., Keen endeavored to obtain a bond of indemnity to himself, to be executed by six obligors, among whom were Peter A. Keyser, who signed the bond, and Jacob Culp, who did not.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-02-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1934

6 state decisions

30185118601870188018901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Lowbje, J.

¶2This bond was prepared for six obligors, and is executed by only five of them; yet we cannot, therefore, infer that it is incomplete and not binding on those who did execute it. It contains an admission that excludes such an inference, even if it were not excluded by the evidence of delivery.

¶3The bond declares that the plaintiff below had become surety for another person, on the promise of the six persons named in it, that they would indemnify him. This is an admission by the five who executed the bond, that they were jointly bound to indemnify the plaintiff; and though they do allege that another person agreed to become bound with them, yet, when we find their bond in the hands of the plaintiff, it is impossible to imply that it was not intended to bind them to their admitted duty.

¶4The refusal of one of the six to join in the bond did not discharge the others from their promise. And when the five perform their promise by delivering their bond, it would be very wrong to declare the bond to be mere waste paper in the hands of the obligee. This would be a most empty performance. '

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/17/pa/327 · .json · Public domain