Little v. Fairchild
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 235, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, Jan. T., 1899, No. 17, affirming judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 172, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William Little, administrator of George S. Barker, deceased, v. A. C. Fair-child and George Grace. Appeal from Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 235, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of Superior Court, Jan. T., 1899, No. 17, affirming judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 172, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William Little, administrator of George S. Barker, deceased, v. A. C. Fair-child and George Grace. Appeal from Superior Court. From the record it appears that this was an action of assumpsit brought by George S. Barker on September 29, 1893; to recover for certain onions sold to the firm of Fairchild, Grace & Company. Service was made upon but two members of the firm, A. C. Fairchild and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
The objection made to the amendment of the plaintiff’s statement that by it a new and independent cause of action was introduced was not well founded. The only effect of the amendment was to relieve the plaintiff of the necessity of proving that the sale had been made on a particular day. The cause of action remained the same. The allegation as to the time of sale which the defendants were required to meet was very general, but not more so than if it had been stated under a videlicet. Of this they had ample notice, six months before the trial, and ° objection on…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Levin v. Clad & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- In re MalschickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
- John A. Donahue & Son v. Barclay White Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1927
- Michaels v. Binder, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Cambria County1924