Legal Opinion

Plant Flour Mills Co. v. Barag

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1930No. Appeal 362PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This is an action on a trade acceptance for $1,587.50, given for flour sold by plaintiff to defendant.

Defendant, by way of defense to the whole of plaintiff’s claim, set up the breach of an alleged implied warranty of quality, to wit, that the defendant had ordered “good” flour, which, it was alleged, meant in the trade, flour containing eleven and one-half per cent of proteins and having a high gluten content, whereas, the affidavit of defense averred, the flour shipped “contained protein and gluten in a considerably less amount,” without stating, however, the quantity…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wright v. General Carbonic Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Tinius Olsen Testing MacHine Co. v. Wolf Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Descalzi v. North American Fruit ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  4. Plympton Cabinet Co. v. RosenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  5. Hausman Buttler v. Dougherty SonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. National Container Corp. v. Regal Corrugated Box Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Bell v. MainDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API