Aldridge & Co. v. Eshleman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia. 'Ui‘ -• This was an action of assumpsit, Aldridge & Co. to the use of Evan Prowattain against Isaac S. Eshleman.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia. 'Ui‘ -• This was an action of assumpsit, Aldridge & Co. to the use of Evan Prowattain against Isaac S. Eshleman. The plaintiff declared that, whereas one John J. Eshleman, before the time of the making of the promise and undertaking of the said defendánt, hereinafter next mentioned, desired to purchase of the said Aldridge-& Company certain'goods, wares, and merchandise, upon1 credit; and thereupon, in consideration of the premises, and that said Aldridge & Co., at the special instance and request of said defendant, would then and there sell and…
1Per curiam
We are unable to concur with the learned judge in his construction of the paper in suit. He held that it *426referred to future transactions alone, and not to past. We think it referred to both. “Merchandise bought,” are words which, as we understand English, more certainly apply to a past transaction, than to a future; but in view of the circumstances explained in Stevens’s deposition, we have no doubt that the parties meant purchases both past and future.
We think the learned judged erred again when he rejected Stevens’s deposition. Whilst it is true, that the construction of the paper was for…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Miller v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. LippincottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- MacConnell v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Twp. of Mt. Lebanon v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. of New York.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Greenville Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.