Legal Opinion

American Harrow Co. v. Swoope

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1901No. Appeal, No. 125PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal, No. 125, Oct. T., 1900, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 347, on verdict for plaintiff in case of American Harrow-Company v. Philip Swoope. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 125, Oct. T., 1900, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 347, on verdict for plaintiff in case of American Harrow-Company v. Philip Swoope. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial it appeared that on December 14, 1897, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in writing which although confusing in character appeared on its face to be a contract for the sale of certain agricultural implements, chiefly harrows. The terms of this contract are set out in the opinion of the Superior Court. When the defendant was on the stand it…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

W. D. Porter, J.,

The agreement upon which this action was brought was upon a printed form and very confusing in its terms. The various *454covenants, while, perhaps, capable of being construed together, would seem to the average mind to be conflicting. Under the terms of the first section of the second article contained therein, the defendant agreed to purchase and pay for the goods in the contract enumerated. The third section of the same article required the defendant, “ to make the best endeavors to sell all goods possible in the territory hereinafter described, by exhibiting said…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Co. ex rel. Grove v. WillingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
  2. Ferguson v. Rafferty, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County1889
  3. Walker v. FranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  4. Cullmans v. LindsaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
  5. Sidney Sch. Furniture Co. v. Warsaw Sch. DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. El Dorado Jewelry Co. v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Wheatley v. NiedichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  3. Hertzog v. LeonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Harvey v. DimonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. Gandy v. WeckerlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API