Chandler v. Lafferty
| Decision Date | 16 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 156 |
| Citation | 128 A. 507,282 Pa. 550 |
| Parties | Chandler v. Lafferty et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 20, 1925
Appeal, No. 156, Jan. T., 1925, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Blair Co., June T., 1924, No. 138, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of J. W. Chandler v. Fred B. Lafferty and Samuel A. Lafferty, individually and trading as Lafferty Brothers. Affirmed.
Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before EVANS, P.J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. See 83 Pa.Super. 480.
Errors assigned were, inter alia, (2-4) various instructions given at the trial and refusal of new trial.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Thomas C. Hare, with him Robert F. Hare, for appellant.
Marion D. Patterson, with him Robert W. Smith, for appellee.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART and SADLER, JJ.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict in the court below in the sum of $10,257.47. Subsequently the court directed a judgment to be entered in plaintiff's favor for $961.75. The Superior Court reversed the court below, and remitted the record with instructions to enter judgment on the verdict. From this latter judgment in the court below defendants have appealed to this court.
If defendants wish to controvert any question of law or fact on which the judgment of the Superior Court is predicated, it must be through a direct appeal from that court in the method provided by law. Such course was not pursued, hence the conclusion of the Superior Court on the law and facts adjudicated by it becomes the law of the case, binding on us when the subject-matter of the litigation is again brought to us for consideration: State Hospital for Criminal Insane v. Consolidated Water Supply Co., 267 Pa. 29.
When judgment was entered in the court below pursuant to the Superior Court's direction, defendants could appeal to this court on errors of law and fact not considered by the Superior Court. The case in this respect is somewhat like that of McGeehan v. Hughes, 223 Pa 524. This appeal is by the defendants who, with the exception of the questions decided in the appeal to the Superior Court, are in the same position as they would have been in if judgment had been entered on the verdict in the first instance, their right of appeal as to time dating from the entry of the last judgment against them.
When the appeal was before the Superior Court, the assignments of error complained of the court's action in sustaining defendants' reserved point. It was in substance that plaintiff's contract demanded shipment to defendants of the produce, if he had any cars available; if there was a car shortage he was not permitted to equitably prorate or apportion cars received to this and other contracts; but, having done so, he laid himself open to the claim for damages for which the lower court directed judgment.
The contract contained a provision as follows: "Should weather and car conditions prohibit," plaintiff was relieved of the duty to ship. The Superior Court, in determining whether "car conditions" embraced a car shortage permitting vendor plaintiff to equitably prorate the cars received from the railroad to and among all his customers, must of necessity have considered the evidence, if any, as to whether such distribution had in fact been made. Assuming, as we must, that the Superior Court's definition of "car conditions" is the correct one nevertheless, before plaintiff could succeed in that court, he must bring himself within the condition specified in the contract. In other words, if the vendor did not receive sufficient cars to fill all his orders, and did not make an equitable distribution of the cars received, he could not take advantage of this clause in the contract. The Superior Court would not have reversed the judgment of the court below if, in addition to its legal conclusion on the contract, the evidence did not support the vendor's claim of equitable distribution. We need only quote from the opinion of Judge LINN, of the Superior Court, to demonstrate that these two questions were before the court at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loveday v. State, 34
...Clore v. Davis, 19 Ky.L.Rptr. 353, 40 S.W. 380 (1897); Huntington v. Westerfield, 119 La. 615, 44 So. 317 (1907); Chandler v. Lafferty, 282 Pa. 550, 128 A. 507 (1925); Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jett, 175 Tenn. 295, 133 S.W.2d 997 (1939). Other states have concluded that a judgment of an i......
-
Spartan Leasing, Inc. v. Brown
...586, 105 N.E. 52; Clore v. Davis, 19 Ky.L.Rptr. 353, 40 S.W. 380; Huntington v. Westerfield, 119 La. 615, 44 So. 317; Chandler v. Lafferty, 282 Pa. 550, 128 A. 507; Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jett, 175 Tenn. 295, 133 S.W.2d 997. Nine other states, however, have held that such prior decisions d......
-
Gehret v. Mitten Bank Sec. Corp.
...it sets up, and to support the legal conclusions it presents in defending against the plaintiffs' rights to recover. Chandler v. Lafferty, 282 Pa. 550, 128 A. The defense is clearly founded on the case of Warren v. Queen & Co., 240 Pa. 154, page 160, 87 A. 595, 597, which was decided when t......
-
Title Guar. Co. v. Barone
... ... See Broomall v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 296 Pa. 132, 140, 145 A. 703; Schlossstein v. Bernstein, 293 Pa. 245, 142 A. 324; Chandler v. Lafferty, 282 Pa. 550, 128 A. 507; Liacopoulos v. Coumoulis, 298 Pa. 329, 148 A. 474 ... Appellant further complains that the use ... ...