Union Refining & Storage Co. v. Bushnell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 204. This was an action of assumpsit by Daniel Bushnell, for use of Lockhart & Frew, against the Union 'Defining and Storage Company.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1878, No. 204. This was an action of assumpsit by Daniel Bushnell, for use of Lockhart & Frew, against the Union 'Defining and Storage Company. The following contract was made, viz.: “Pittsburgh, July 17th A. D. 1867, bought for account of Union Defining and S. 0*., from Mr. D. Bushnell, five thousand (5000) barrels crude petroleum in bulk, forty gallons to the barrel, clean merchantable oil, gravity forty to forty-five degrees, to be delivered at landing of Union D. and S. Co., at sellers’ option,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
The advertisement given in evidence by the plaintiff below, against the objection of the defendant, was, at best, but an ex parte notice or declaration on part of Brewer, Burke & Co., designed to inform whoever might happen to read it that they were engaged in the oil business as commission merchants, and that they were agents for certain refineries, among which was the Liberty. As there is no proof that McKee, Hackett & Co. ever saw or heard of this advertisement, they could not be affected by it, and it was no more entitled to be received in evidence than any other unauthorized declaration…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dimond v. M'DowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kroll v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913