Brinser v. Longenecker & Bausman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 144, July T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Sept., T., 1891, No. 86, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit to recover moneys paid for a lot of heifers which it was claimed were not in the condition in which they were warranted.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 144, July T., 1894, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Sept., T., 1891, No. 86, on verdict for defendants. Assumpsit to recover moneys paid for a lot of heifers which it was claimed were not in the condition in which they were warranted. Before Betjjbakee, J. The facts appear by the charge of the court which was as follows: “ This suit is founded upon a warranty or an alleged warranty on the part of the defendants of the soundness and healthy condition of a lot of heifers purchased by the plaintiff on the 8th day of August, 1888. If you believe the testimony of…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cue:am,
In his statement of claim, plaintiff commences by averring: “ This suit is founded and based upon a warranty, on the part of the defendants, of the soundness and healthy condition of a lot of heifers bought by plaintiff of defendants and sold by *56defendants to plaintiff.” The natural inference from this comprehensive averment is, that each and every item of plaintiff’s claim is founded on the alleged warranty; but, after stating in detail the terms, breach, etc., of the warranty, the plaintiff in the next paragraph of his statement avers that two of the heifers, worth together about…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Herman v. BrinkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Reynolds v. RamseySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914