Pittsburg Automobile Co. v. Iron City Sand Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 203, April T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1913, No. 1,405, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Pittsburg Automobile Company v. Iron City Sand Company. Assumpsit for work done and material furnished. Before Davis, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 203, April T., 1913, by defendant, from order of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1913, No. 1,405, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Pittsburg Automobile Company v. Iron City Sand Company. Assumpsit for work done and material furnished. Before Davis, J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action was brought for work done and material furnished on and about two motor trucks, one of which was known as a “Commer” truck and the other, a “Vulcan” truck. The plaintiff had sold the Commer truck to the defendant on a written guarantee that it would give satisfactory service “provided the purchaser’s requirements of each truck are O. K. and accepted by him.” The guarantee contained several conditions as to overloading, use of proper lubricants, carrying out reasonable instructions as to the operating of the machine and weekly inspection by the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Genesee Paper Co. v. BogertSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Biernbaum v. FosterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Berko v. Kemper Construction Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- McCaskey Register Co. v. Barsby, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County1922