Burchfield v. Alpha Process Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Oct. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June Term, 1906, No. 2,007, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Theodore T. Burchfield, trading as T. T. Burchfield Company, to the use of The Titusville Iron Company, v. Alpha Process Company. Foreign attachment in assumpsit. Before Barratt, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
The court below granted a nonsuit in this case for a *255specific purpose. The reasons were stated at the time the nonsuit was entered, the trial judge saying: “There is no doubt about the fact of a breach of the contract upon the part of the plaintiff in not delivering the engine in the time stipulated by the contract, nor is there any doubt about the fact that the defendant has a thousand-dollar boiler from the plaintiff which was delivered to him and which he is using, but for which he has not paid. While it is conceded that this is an entire contract, and that there has…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hatton v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Boyd v. McCulloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Davis v. StuardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Kuhn v. SkelleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Hausman v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Dravo Contracting Co. v. James Rees & Sons Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Young v. United States Housing Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Gilbert v. Steinmetz, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1927