Buffington v. Quantin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia, This was an action of assumpsit' by A. Quantin v. L. W. Buffington, to recover $165, the price demanded for two sofas which Quantin had made under an order from Buffington. On the trial, the plaintiff below proved his original entries, charging two sofas to defendant below, and closed his case.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Philadelphia, This was an action of assumpsit' by A. Quantin v. L. W. Buffington, to recover $165, the price demanded for two sofas which Quantin had made under an order from Buffington. On the trial, the plaintiff below proved his original entries, charging two sofas to defendant below, and closed his case. Defendant below then offered Benjamin Buffington, who testified that “ upon the day of the delivery of the sofas to defendant, he returned the sofas to the plaintiff. I called on Mr. Quantin with the Doctor; he told the plaintiff he would not keep the…
1Per curiam
The vendor of a thing rejected and unpaid for, may have it sold at auction on the vendee’s account, because he has no other means of holding the vendee to the bargain, and, at the same time enforcing his lien for the price. As he could not have the thing and the price of it too, an action for the price would result in nominal damages, and the event would virtually be a rescission of the contract. He is therefore allowed to sell the thing at auction, and charge the vendee with the difference of price. But a vendee who receives the thing into his possession, before he has become acquainted with…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Elzea v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Estes v. KauffmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Marquette-Bailey Lumber Co. v. GibboneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Stanley Drug Co. v. Smith, Kline & French LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Ireland Bros. v. Refowich Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.