Renick & Brand v. Aronoff
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 331, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiffs, from judgment of O. P. No. 2, Phila. County, June T., 1920, No. 6653, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in tbe case of Isaac Renick and Raphael Brand, trading as the Perfect Undergarment Company, v. Samuel Aro-noff, and Benjamin Naineark, trading as Anco Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit on book account.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 331, Oct. T., 1920, by plaintiffs, from judgment of O. P. No. 2, Phila. County, June T., 1920, No. 6653, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in tbe case of Isaac Renick and Raphael Brand, trading as the Perfect Undergarment Company, v. Samuel Aro-noff, and Benjamin Naineark, trading as Anco Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit on book account. Before Barratt, P. J. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court discharged the rule. Plaintiffs appealed. Error…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The defense presented to the plaintiffs’ action was that the merchandise contracted for was to correspond with the sample shown, that the defendants relied on the statements of the plaintiffs that the goods would correspond therewith, and that the goods delivered were of an inferior quality different from what was ordered and of material “like chamois and dusting cloth, and not good muslin,” except as to the quantity set forth in an exhibit attached to the affidavit, having a value of $97, the contract price. It was also averred that plaintiffs delivered a fractional…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Portland Ice Co. v. ConnorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Texas Co. v. Brilliant Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1924
- Cohn v. PostSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922