J. M. Conway & Co. v. Lewis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 276 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 517 June Term 1885, C. P. Citarles II. Lewis had recovered a judgment before a magistrate against Joint M. Conway and E. H. Hamilton, trading as John M. Conway & Co., lor $92.94, wlten tbe defendants took an appeal.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. No. 276 January Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 517 June Term 1885, C. P. Citarles II. Lewis had recovered a judgment before a magistrate against Joint M. Conway and E. H. Hamilton, trading as John M. Conway & Co., lor $92.94, wlten tbe defendants took an appeal. At a second trial in the Common Pleas on January 18,1887, the plaintiff’s ease was presented by evidence showing that be was a manufacturer of woolen yarn at Bristol, Tenn., and in September 20,1884, lie wrote tbe defendants, who were commission merchants in New…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion,
Mr. Justice Williams:
Conway et ah, defendants below, were commission merchants. Lewis consigned three bales of yarn to them for sale. It was represented to bo a 20-cut yarn worth at that time about forty-five cents per pound. The bales were tested by reeling and weighing samples from them, and the yarn, as Conway alleges, was found to be not an even 20-cut, but an uneven and inferior article ranging from eighteen to thirty cuts. Efforts were made by Conway et al., to sell the yam, but the highest price offered was, as they allege, thirty cents per pound. They wrote to Lewis the result…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kraber v. Union InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889