The Imperial Rolling Screen Co. v. Steinfeld Bros.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1911
• Docket Number: 47
• Parties: The Imperial Rolling Screen Company v. Steinfeld Brothers, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

81 A. 413

232 Pa. 399

The Imperial Rolling Screen Company v. Steinfeld Brothers, Appellant

No. 47

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 6, 1911

Argued March 28, 1911

Appeal, No. 47, Jan. T., 1911, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1907, No. 130, for plaintiff on findings of the referee in case of The Imperial Rolling Screen Company v. Samuel Steinfeld and Leo Steinfeld trading as Steinfeld Bros. Affirmed.

Assumpsit by foreign attachment to recover damages for breach of contract. The case was referred by agreement of the parties to Frank P. Prichard, Esq., as referee.

From the record it appeared that the suit was brought upon a contract dated March 9, 1907, whereby plaintiff agreed to sell and defendants to buy at least 20,000 Imperial roller screens at eighty cents each, to be taken, 5,000 by May 1 1907; 5,000 by May 15, 1907; and at least 10,000 by June 15, 1907. Under this agreement defendants took and paid for 3,384 screens. Plaintiff claiming to have manufactured and offered delivery of the balance of 16,342 screens, brought suit on the ground that the acceptance was refused.

The referee found that plaintiff was willing and ready to supply the minimum quantity of screens and that defendants refused to take and pay for the minimum; that the screens were substantially as contracted for; that there was no agreement to pay demonstrators; that the balance of screens not taken, were reasonably worth in the market twenty cents apiece; that the screens were not practically or commercially a success, but that defendants were not at fault in the failure to market them.

The referee awarded to plaintiff the sum of $10,834.74. Exceptions to his report were dismissed by the court.

Defendants appealed. *** pa110b41 p 962 0507

Errors assigned were in dismissing exceptions to the report of the referee.

The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Francis Chapman, of Chapman & Chapman, with him S. Spencer Chapman, for appellants. -- The duty was on the plaintiff to establish the measure of damages: Unexcelled Fire Works Co. v. Polites, 130 Pa. 536; Jones v. Jennings Bros. & Co., 168 Pa. 493; Kinports v. Breon, 193 Pa. 309; Sharpsville Furnace Co. v. Snyder, 223 Pa. 372.

Sheldon Potter, of Potter, Dechert & Norris, for appellee. -- The referee's finding as to the damages was proper: Girard v. Taggart, 5 S. & R. 19; Andrews v. Hoover, 8 Watts, 239; Morris v. Supplee, 208 Pa. 253; M'Combs v. M'Kennan, 2 W. & S. 216; Puritan Coke Co. v. Clark, 204 Pa. 556.

Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE POTTER:

The law of this case is not doubtful, and appellants have substantially no complaint to make of its application by the referee to the facts as found by him. The measure of damages which he applied was "the contract price, less the value of the undelivered screens in the plaintiff's hands at the time of the breach." He also rightfully assumed that the burden was on plaintiff "to show that value, and thus establish the measure of damages." The rule thus enunciated and applied is undoubtedly correct, and is sustained by an abundance of authority. See Guillon v. Earnshaw, 169 Pa. 463; Puritan Coke Co. v. Clark, 204 Pa. 556.

The referee found specifically that the plaintiff and defendants entered into a written contract under which plaintiff was ready and willing to furnish to defendants the minimum quantity of 20,000 screens. That defendants refused to take more than a portion of the amount agreed upon. That the screens manufactured were in substantial compliance with the agreement and were accepted as such by defendants. That at the time of the breach, the remainder of the minimum quantity of the screens which defendants refused to accept and pay for, were reasonably worth in the market twenty cents apiece. These findings of fact cover the case, and...