Consolidated Dressed Beef Co. v. City of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 04 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 20 |
| Citation | 91 A. 367,245 Pa. 268 |
| Parties | Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., Appellant, v. Philadelphia |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 25, 1914
Appeal, No. 20, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1912, No. 1606, on directed verdict for the defendant in case of Consolidated Dressed Beef Company v. City of Philadelphia. Affirmed.
Assumpsit for meat sold and delivered by plaintiff to the defendant city under a duly authorized contract.
HALL P.J., specially presiding, delivered the following charge:
This is an action brought by the Consolidated Dressed Beef Company, a corporation doing business in this city, against the City of Philadelphia, to recover the sum of $9,263.11 for beef sold and delivered to the City of Philadelphia in the year 1912 under the provisions of a certain contract which was entered into between these parties on the ninth day of January, 1912 in pursuance of a proposal and bid which had been made by the plaintiff company and accepted by the city shortly before. The specifications which were contained in this contract, provided that all beef which was to be furnished the city by the contractor should be steer beef.
A steer is a male member of the bovine family which has been castrated young in life, that is, prior to his arriving at the age of four years, and none of the witnesses who have been upon the stand claim that there is anything ambiguous in this word, but they testify that this is a meaning which is general and is recognized by all members of the trade, and it is not claimed that the word "steer" was used in this contract in any other manner except in its ordinary and usually accepted sense, or that it had in this locality any special trade signification. It appears that the contractor in carrying out the terms of the contract, instead of furnishing steer meat proceeded to furnish the almshouse with the meat of bulls, cows and stags, and in some instances oxen, and that when this was called to his attention by the proper official of the city he did not deny it, but upon the contrary admitted that he was furnishing this other meat, which appears to have been healthful and fit for eating, but of an inferior and cheaper quality than steer meat, and he informed the director that that was the kind of meat that he proposed to furnish, and said that he had no intention of furnishing steer meat under the contract, and that if he did so it would cost him at least $50,000. The city thereupon annulled this contract, or rescinded this contract, bought meat in the open market, and finally readvertised and relet the contract, all of which they had a perfect right to do under the terms of the contract which had been entered into between the city and the plaintiff company, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial