Wright v. General Carbonic Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1922, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 6318, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in case of Philip E. Wright v. General Carbonic Co. Assumpsit for coke sold and delivered. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court made absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was above order.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Plaintiff sold to the defendant, under three contracts, respectively dated July 14th, 26th, and August 30th, 1920, a number of carloads of coke. The product, described as “West Virginia Run of Ovens,” was to be delivered f. o. b. at the mines; payment to be made on the 20th of the following month. Admittedly, all of the shipments were received and taken into the possession of defendant. The plaintiff received a small sum on account of the purchase price, and brought this action to recover the balance. The affidavit of defense averred the contract was entered into…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Moore v. Luzerne CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Federal Sales Co. v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Wright v. Bristol Patent Leather Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Griffin v. Metal Product Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Tinius Olsen Testing MacHine Co. v. Wolf Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Hill & MacMillan, Inc. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- New York & Penna. Co. v. N. Y. Central R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Michelin Tire Co. v. SchulzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.