F. C. Austin Manufacturing Co. v. Ayr Township
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 284, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Fulton Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 52, on verdict for defendant in casé of F. C. Austin Manufacturing Company to use of Florence Hanks v. Ayr Township. Assumpsit on township orders.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 284, Oct. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Fulton Co., Jan. T., 1899, No. 52, on verdict for defendant in casé of F. C. Austin Manufacturing Company to use of Florence Hanks v. Ayr Township. Assumpsit on township orders. At the trial it appeared that on September 23, 1892, George W. Glenn and David I. Rinedollar addressed a communication in writing to the plaintiff directing that two road machines of the kind manufactured by plaintiff should be sent to Ayr township for trial and inspection. The paper contained an agreement that if the machines did the work as…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The questions now presented in this case are not materially different from those considered and determined in the former appeal, Austin Mfg. Co. v. Ayr Township, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 419. The power and duties of the township supervisors were there sufficiently discussed, and that discussion need not now be elaborated or repeated. We are only to consider whether there is evidence for the plaintiff which should have been submitted to the jury. The learned court below attached undue importance to the order for the road machine signed by the supervisors. Conceding that that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Austin Manufacturing Co. v. Ayr TownshipSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
3Cited by3 opinions
- Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. Butler TownshipSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
- F. C. Austin Manufacturing Co. v. AyrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Good Roads Machinery Co. v. Union TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907