Pratt v. Paules
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh County to review a judgment for plaintiffs in foreign attachment proceedings to recover money due upon a contract.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Lehigh County to review a judgment for plaintiffs in foreign attachment proceedings to recover money due upon a contract. The facts and questions of law raised by this case sufficiently appear in the charge given in the court below, by Axbbight, P. J., the material portions of which are as follows: It appears that in the year 1877, Panles & Co., the plaintiffs, were engaged in the quarrying, manufacturing, and selling of slate near Slatington, in this county, and that Mr. Pratt was a dealer in slate in the city of New York. Prom the letters and telegrams passing…
1Per curiam
It is averred in the paper book of the defendants in error, and not denied by plaintiff, that he has not printed all the evidence. Some which he omitted has been supplied by the other party. We are unable to find any sufficient evidence of the actual condition of the slate when it arrived in Australia. It was delivered on the cars at Slatington. The question was fairly submitted to the jury to find whether the slate delivered to plaintiff in error was according to contract. He was entitled to receive slate of quality No. 1, “free from scabs and greybacks.” If such was not furnished, the jury…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Groetzinger's Sons v. W. L. Kann & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895