Woodruff v. Painter & Eldridge
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1892, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1889, No. 158, refusing to take off nonsuit in assumpsit for breach of contract as bailees. The facts appear by the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Heydbick,
The defendants were retail dealers in clothing in the city of Philadelphia. The plaintiff, in company with his wife, visited their store for the purpose of purchasing a suit of clothes, having upon his person at the time a watch and chain. Having selected a coat and vest, and, being about to remove the corresponding garments for the purpose of trying on those selected, he took off his watch and chain, and was about to lay it on a pile of clothing, when the salesman who was waiting upon him said : “You had better put your watch here,” indicating a drawer from…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bunnell v. . SternNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- First National Bank v. GrahamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Logan v. MathewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- DeHaven v. Kensington National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
3Cited by38 opinions
- Markman v. Fred P. Bell Stores Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- American Enka Company, in No. 82-1080 v. Wicaco MacHine Corp. American Enka Company v. Wicaco MacHine Corp., in No. 82-1109Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Chapman v. ClothierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Cody v. VenzieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.