Huber Manufacturing Co. v. Smithgall
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 13, Feb. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., March T., 1898, No. 434, on verdict for defendant in case of Huber Manufacturing Company v. Daniel Smithgall. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned among others was (7) in refusing binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter,
The paper which the defendant signed was (when delivered to the agent to be forwarded to the plaintiff company in Ohio), no more than a proposition or offer to lease from the company certain threshing machinery. By the terms of the writing it could only become a contract when accepted or approved by an officer of the plaintiff company. Until approval, it lacked 'the essential element of mutuality. Until then, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties. The machinery to be leased was intended to be used by the defendant in the grain harvest to be reaped in a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hoffman v. Bloomsburg & Sullivan R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Vincent v. Woodland Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Miller's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Bosshardt & Wilson Co. v. Crescent Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Borland v. GuffeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co. v. AllebachSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Claro Milling Co. v. Davis Bros., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1918
- JIANGSU BEIER DECORATION MATERIALS CO., LTD. v. ANGLE WORLD LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- New Prague Flouring Mill Co. v. HeenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924