Leechburg Co. v. Jennings Bros. & Co
Decision Date | 01 October 1891 |
Docket Number | 322 |
Parties | LEECHBURG CO. v. JENNINGS BROS. & Co |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 10, 1891
APPEAL BY PLAINTIFF FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
No. 322 October Term 1891, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 195 October Term 1891, C.P. No. 2.
On August 17, 1891, the Leechburg Foundry & Machine Company brought assumpsit against Jennings Brothers & Co., Limited filing a statement of claim to recover the sum of $253.40 for an annealing-box bottom, made for the defendants and delivered.
The defendants filed an affidavit of defence averring as follows:
On October 6, 1891, a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence having been argued, the rule was discharged without opinion filed. Thereupon, the plaintiff took this appeal, assigning the order for error.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. E E. Craumer (with him Mr. Milliken), for the appellant.
Counsel cited: Erie City v. Butler, 120 Pa. 374; Hebb v Insurance Co., 138 Pa. 174; Peck v. Jones, 70 Pa. 83; Ogden v. Beatty, 137 Pa. 197; Class v. Kingsley, 142 Pa. 636; Campbell Co. v. Hering, 139 Pa. 473; Philadelphia v. Baker, 140 Pa. 11; Kerns v. Piper, 4 W. 222; Hays v. Lynn, 7 W. 524; Central Tel. & S. Co. v. Thompson, 112 Pa. 118; Union Ref. Co. v. Bushnell, 88 Pa. 89; Whiting v. Lake, 91 Pa. 349; Reaney v. Culbertson, 21 Pa. 507; Selden v. Neemes, 43 Pa. 421; Kaufman v. Mining...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Luntz v. Berry
...accept them, and would hold them " subject to their order." This was all that was necessary: Dailey v. Green, 15 Pa. 118; Leechburg F. & M. Co. v. Jennings, 145 Pa. 559; Holt v. Pie, 120 Pa. On March 22, plaintiffs still exercising their authority and direction over the goods, advised defen......