Conrad v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 74, Jan. T, 1894, by plaintiff, Walter H. Conrad, trading as A. Conrad’s Son, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1893, No. 184, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence in assumpsit for breach of contract to send telegram. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was discharge of rule.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
This is an appeal by plaintiff from decree of court below, discharging a rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered against defendant in default of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
The plaintiff in his statement averred: (1) That on June 27, 1892, he had delivered to defendant at its office in Philadelphia, to be transmitted to his correspondents, Wisner & Co., at Shanghai, China, a business message, which translated reads thus: “Referring to your telegram of date, we do not understand the whole of it. We now give you the following order for goatskins…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. CarewMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Wolf v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- American Express Co. v. Second National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. BerrySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Clyde v. HubbardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1879