Stanton v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 96, Jan. T., 1912, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1911, No. 2445, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover the value of a quantity of celery accepted by the defendant for cold storage. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned was order making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Potter,
The question that meets us upon the threshold of this appeal is whether the suit was properly brought in assumpsit, or whether the form of action should have been trespass, to recover damages for a tort. The basis of liability upon the part of the defendant company as disclosed by the statement of claim, was its failure to take proper care of a quantity of celery deposited in its cold storage warehouse by the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant company 3,651 crates of celery for the purpose of having it kept in cold storage for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Zell v. DunkleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Corry v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Bethlehem Borough v. Perseverance Fire Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Eckert v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Osborn v. First National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Howard v. SwiftIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
- Platt v. PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Anderson Equipment Co. v. FindleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Dooley v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- West Homestead Borough v. ErbeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.