
    Watson et al. v. Porzel et al., Executors, Appellants.
    Contract— Guaranty— Origin ai undertaking — Evidence.
    Plaintiffs required from Miller, a customer, security before they would furnish him with goods. At Miller’s request, defendants’ testator addressed to plaintiffs this letter: “ Send J. A. Miller, 6324 Station St., E. E., six gross export beer bottles and put down his order for fifty gross of full quarts. Green glass, with his name on, J. A. Miller, East End, Pittsburgh.” Held, that the letter was evidence of an original undertaking by defendants’ testator to pay for the goods therein specified upon their delivery to J. A Miller.
    Argued Nov. 6, 1893.
    Appeal, No. 253, Oct. T., 1893, by defendants, Charles Porzel and W. R. Succop, executors of John Kaiser, deceased, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1892, No. 696, on verdict for plaintiffs, Mark W. Watson et al., trading as William McCully & Co.
    Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Williams, McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Thompson, JJ.
    Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Collier, J.
    At the trial it appeared that in April, 1890, J. A. Miller, who had been buying small quantities of goods from plaintiffs, desired credit for a larger quantity of goods than he had before ordered. Plaintiffs required security, and Miller took to their store defendant’s testator, John Kaiser. One of plaintiffs’ employees testified that Mr. Kaiser said that he would be responsible for any goods Mr. Miller ordered. At plaintiffs’ request, Kaiser then gave to plaintiffs the following writing: “Send
    
      J. A. Miller, 6324 Station St., E. E., six gross export beer bottles and put down bis order for fifty gross of full quarts. Green glass, with his name on, J. A. Miller, East End, Pittsburgh.”
    Under objection and exception, the court admitted the writing in evidence. [1]
    Defendants offered no evidence.
    Binding instructions were given for plaintiffs. [2]
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1) admission of evidence; (2) instructions, as above; the assignments, not quoting them.
    
      Magnus Pflaum, for appellants,
    cited: Patterson v. Reed, 7 Watts & Serg. 144; Coe v. Buehler, 110 Pa. 366; Kay v. Allen, 9 Pa. 320; McGough v. Birmingham, 29 Pitts. Leg. J. 178; Petriken v. Baldy, 7 W. & S. 429; Unangst v. Hibler, 26 Pa. 150; McQuewans v. Hamlin, 30 Pa. 215; Kellogg v. Stockton & Fuller, 29 Pa. 460; National Loan & Building Assn. v. Lichtenwalner, 100 Pa. 100.
    
      George E. Shaw, Marshall Sproul with him, for appellees,
    not heard, cited: Ueberroth v. Riegel & Bro., 71 Pa. 280.
    November 14, 1893:
   Pee Cubtam,

There was no error in admitting in evidence the paper referred to in the first specification of error. Its execution was admitted, and it was clearly evidence of an original undertaking by the defendants’ testator, John Kaiser, to pay for the goods therein specified, upon their delivery to J. A. Miller. Nor was there any error in directing the jury to find in favor of the plaintiffs. Neither of the specifications is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.  