Kinney v. Harrison Manufacturing & Boiler Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 15, March T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 152, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert D. Kinney, to use of Alice B. Kinney, trading as R. D. Kinney & Company v. Harrisburg Manufacturing & Boiler Company. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 15, March T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Dauphin Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 152, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Robert D. Kinney, to use of Alice B. Kinney, trading as R. D. Kinney & Company v. Harrisburg Manufacturing & Boiler Company. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Plaintiff sued to recover damages for failure on part of the defendant to deliver three sets of steam boiler drums. Annexed to the statement were a number of letters relating to the alleged agreement. Henry J. Forney,…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The plaintiff’s statement is not good. It seems to combine two causes of action, one arising under a contract and the other under a tort. In the one, she claims $618 difference between the amount of the alleged contract for drums for boilers and what she paid therefor to other parties, and in the other, $2,000, by reason of a fraud perpetrated upon her. These separate causes of action cannot be combined in a single suit. If it be said that the claim for damages for the alleged fraud was simply makeweight, it should have been omitted.
As to the alleged contract. It does not seem to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Steel v. LevySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Coughenour v. Charles E. Stewart & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- J. B. Colt Co. v. Shirk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County1923
- Shuck v. Menser, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Somerset County1934