Arnold v. Blabon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 101, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Arnold & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Deo. T., 1889, No. 660, on certificate for defendants, George W. Blabon & Co. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Pleas non assumpsit, payment, set-off.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 101, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiffs, Arnold & Co., from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Deo. T., 1889, No. 660, on certificate for defendants, George W. Blabon & Co. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Pleas non assumpsit, payment, set-off. The defendants filed an affidavit of defence in which they averred: “ After delivering to us the quantity of granulated cork, for which suit is brought, the plaintiffs repudiated their contract with us and refused to deliver to us for our manufacturing purposes any further amount of cork. We were obliged to obtain our supply of…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
The first specification of error is not properly assigned, and if it had been it would not have helped the appellant, as the evidence was properly admitted. A careful examination of the remaining specification fails to disclose error on the part of the court. The error, if any, was with the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by10 opinions
- Theiss v. WeissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Seward v. Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Morris v. SuppleeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- Pittsburg Sheet Manufacturing Co. v. West Penn Sheet Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Delmont Gas Coal Co. v. Diamond Alkali Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.