Himes v. Kiehl
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, Oct. T., 1892, by defendants, Jacob Kiehl and M. L. Hinderliter, from judgment of C. P. Jefferson Co., Sept. T., 1890, No. 266, on verdict for plaintiffs, G. W. Himes and A. J. Himes. Assumpsit for breach of warranty of steam engine.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, Oct. T., 1892, by defendants, Jacob Kiehl and M. L. Hinderliter, from judgment of C. P. Jefferson Co., Sept. T., 1890, No. 266, on verdict for plaintiffs, G. W. Himes and A. J. Himes. Assumpsit for breach of warranty of steam engine. At the trial before Babb, P. J., plaintiffs’ evidence was that when they purchased the engine in exchange for a “ horse power ” and a $200 note,' defendants guaranteed that it would give all the power needed for threshing purposes, if not they would take it back; that the engine failed to give the power guaranteed and that plaintiffs had notified…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Gbeen,
We think the second assignment of error must be sustained. As the measure of damages in this action was the difference between the actual value of the engine as it was, at the time of the sale, and its value if it had been as warranted, it was scarcely competent to limit the inquiry as to what it was worth for the purposes of the plaintiffs. It might be worth nothing for their purposes, and nevertheless have a fair market value for other purposes. Its actual market value, no matter for what purpose, would indicate, at least approximately, how much money could have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seigworth v. LeffelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
3Cited by20 opinions
- Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Moore v. HornerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
- Bullock v. Chester & Darby Telford Road Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Joseph v. RichardsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Kappel v. MethSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.