Eastern Forge Co. v. Baizley
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 1737, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Eastern Forge Company of Massachusetts v. John H. Baizley and Rudolph R. Baizley, trading as the John Baizley Iron Works. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1902, by defendants, from order of C. P. No. 1, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 1737, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Eastern Forge Company of Massachusetts v. John H. Baizley and Rudolph R. Baizley, trading as the John Baizley Iron Works. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff’s statement claimed the sum of $686.03 with interest, being the sum alleged to be due on a book account for the sale and delivery of certain forged iron billets and forged iron bars at certain agreed prices. An affidavit…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, J.,
On May 18,1901, the defendants gave to the plaintiff’s agent an order for about 80,000 pounds of refined iron that was to be hammered into sizes according to detailed markings; which order concluded as follows : “ Please deliver as soon as possible about 40,000 pounds, including items two and three, and follow with remainder in about two weeks.” On May 18, the order was received and entered^ by the plaintiff company. Pursuant to the correspondence, about 40,000 pounds of forged iron, billets and bars, were delivered, and this action is brought to recover therefor.
*506The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Stern v. DwyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Punxsutawney Borough v. CarmaltSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909