Morley Auto Co. v. Pittsburg Machine Tool Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 97, April T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1909, No. 866, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Morley Auto Company v. Pitts-burg Machine Tool Company. Assumpsit to recover a hand payment of $900, made on account of an automobile truck which was to be delivered to plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 97, April T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1909, No. 866, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Morley Auto Company v. Pitts-burg Machine Tool Company. Assumpsit to recover a hand payment of $900, made on account of an automobile truck which was to be delivered to plaintiff. Before Ford, J. At the trial the court charged in part as follows: The fact that a strike occurred in the defendant’s plant would not excuse performance of its express contract. The defendant agreed to deliver the machine within a certain time. The contract was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
It is admitted that the defendant’s obligation was to deliver to the plaintiff an automobile truck at the end of four weeks from March 25,1907, and that the machine was not ready for shipment until the first week in August. A strike in the defendant’s shop was given as an explanation of the delay. Correspondence between the parties shows that on six or seven different dates the defendant promised to have the work completed in a short time or at a date stated in the near future and that no one of *228these promises was complied with. The defendant knew that the machine was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Home B. & L. Ass'n v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- M'Gee v. Northumberland BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dougherty v. HebbleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932