Diamond Alkali Co. v. Henderson Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The court below erroneously admitted in evidence statements prepared by an accountant determining the amount of coal to which appellant was entitled during the existence of causes beyond appellee’s control, notwithstanding such statements were not a summary of anything appearing upon appellee’s books or records but merely conclusions of the witness based on his construction of written instruments. and his interpretation of oral testimony.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Kephart,
Appellant was a buyer of coal of various grades from appellee. It purchased 62,400 tons slack, 5,000 tons nut and 2,500 tons egg coal, delivery to be made during the year. The different grades were produced by screening run-of-mine coal. Appellee failed to deliver all the coal contracted for and this action for damages was brought in the court below by appellant, who recovered $12,500 on a claim of some $60,000.
The contract provided: “Deliveries of coal shall be subject to delays occasioned by strikes, lockouts, accidents and other unavoidable casualties in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Graham v. Pennsylvania Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. Peninsular Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1921
- Ehmling v. D. L. Ward Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Delmont Gas Coal Co. v. Diamond Alkali Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Acme Mfg. Co. v. Arminius Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Yeager v. HeckmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957