Snyder v. Loy
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 16, March T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Perry Co., on verdict for plaintiff.. Assumpsit to recover damages for alleged breach of parol contract. Before Lyons, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were: (1.) Answer to the second point of defendant: “ 2d.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 16, March T., 1897, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Perry Co., on verdict for plaintiff.. Assumpsit to recover damages for alleged breach of parol contract. Before Lyons, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were: (1.) Answer to the second point of defendant: “ 2d. That the time is an essential element in the contract and to observe the time of performance was equally obligatory on the plaintiff and defendants as to the whole contract and if the jury believe that the plaintiff did not attempt to, or did not remove the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Willard, J.,
This was an action of assumpsit in the court below by H. C. Snyder against Edward R. Loy and James R. Loy, trading as Loy Brothers, to recover damages for an alleged breach of parol contract.
At the trial it was alleged on the part of Loy Brothers that in March, 1895, they had on hand for sale fifty-five head of cattle, thirty of which were in a barn near their house, fifteen at their lower barn and ten at a barn known as the Stein barn. That they sold to Snyder the cattle at the lower and Stein barns, twenty-five in number at $4.50 per hundred pounds, to be delivered “…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Quigley v. DeHaasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Price v. HamscherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Carmalt v. PlattSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Hull v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Barnett v. BeckerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904