Lautner v. Kann

• Decision Date: 03 January 1898
• Docket Number: 60
• Citation: 184 Pa. 334,39 A. 55
• Parties: Joseph Lautner and John G. Walther, Executors of the Estate of A. Holstein, deceased, v. W. L. Kann, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

39 A. 55

184 Pa. 334

Joseph Lautner and John G. Walther, Executors of the Estate of A. Holstein, deceased, v. W. L. Kann, Appellant

No. 60

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1898

Argued November 9, 1887

Appeal, No. 60, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1895, No. 378, on verdict for plaintiffs. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a book account. Before STOWE, P.J.

The facts appear by the charge of the court, which was as follows:

In this case the plaintiffs make out their case by the admitted evidence. There is no question that Mr. Holstein did furnish the amount of leather that is claimed for, and in a general way there is no question as to the prices. There is a question as to some matters about which you heard the testimony, that is, as to the amount delivered and the weights, which you will consider when the proper time comes. But in a general way the plaintiffs make out their case, and it devolves upon the defendant to meet it.

These plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of the transactions. They are the executors of the dead man's estate. They find upon the books of account or records belonging to the deceased, certain matters indicating that Mr. Kann, the defendant, is indebted to the estate, that is, it shows that without anything on the other side by way of answer. They can throw very little, if any, light upon the subject, except the fact that they have these books. The charges are not controverted. They come into court and there their knowledge in this case seems to terminate, and that will account for the fact that so far as they were concerned they were not upon the stand, because the evidence shows they could not know anything about it any more than you or I would know about a question as to which we have no personal knowledge or in regard to an estate of which we were executors.

But the defendant is met by a similar difficulty. His claim in this case is not that he did not get this leather, but that there was a contract made between him and Mr. Holstein which was to a certain extent, at least, a private matter, they being friendly in business relations and probably personally. He claims that under that contract Mr. Holstein entered into certain obligations for the delivery of leather of various kinds at fixed prices, with which he failed to comply. When you come to the question of that contract the defendant's mouth is closed. He is not, and he cannot be, a witness. He has to give his testimony the best way he can, from all the circumstances, or by other witnesses to prove that such a contract existed.

I shall not go into details in any shape with reference to the testimony tending to establish the alleged defense. The plaintiffs are entitled to their claim unless the defendant has satisfied you fairly by the weight of the evidence that he has a complete defense. He says that he is entitled, under those allegations, and the testimony tending to sustain them not only to a verdict in his favor, but that there should be a large amount certified in his favor as a balance, which the jury should give if they should find there was a balance coming to the defendant. If you find a verdict for the defendant, you certify a balance in his favor of so much. That is the form of the verdict. Or you can say, we find for the defendant so much, and we will put it in shape when you come into court.

The defendant must satisfy you that there was a contract, must satisfy you of the terms of that contract, must satisfy you of the breach of that contract. Then when he has done that, the question arises between the price that was to be paid for the leather of different kinds that was not delivered, and the market price at that time. That is what the defendant is entitled to have on his side of the settlement in his favor as against the claim of the plaintiffs, the difference between what price was agreed upon between these parties and the ordinary market price at the time of the death of Mr. Holstein, because there does not seem to be any other standard in this case. We cannot come this side of the death, because that cuts off all question in connection with these matters, relieves his personal liability and puts it out of his hands to comply with the contract. Of course it does not clear the estate, but it seems to me the only legal conclusion is to fix the standard of damages with reference to the market prices as of that date, and not at a later date, when they might have gone higher.

The first question is in reference to this contract. Was there a contract by which there was a specific agreement? Because that is what you must find; you must find a distinct agreement between these parties to supply certain leather at certain prices and at certain times. I do not mean a particular day, but as demanded, is the allegation. In other words, was there an agreement by which Mr. Holstein agreed to sell all his product, or certain amounts of leather that were ordered by Mr. Kann as soon as it was ordered, immediately or within a reasonable time? And did he, having the means within his hands, or not having the means, fail to comply with that contract?

If you come to the conclusion that there was such an...