Di Cencio v. Di Filippo
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 132, Oct. T., 1922, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, March T., 1920, No. 496, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Domenico Di Ceneio v. Domenico Di Filippo. Assumpsit to recover back purchase price of goods not delivered. Before Bonniwell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion af the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $274.80 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 132, Oct. T., 1922, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, March T., 1920, No. 496, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Domenico Di Ceneio v. Domenico Di Filippo. Assumpsit to recover back purchase price of goods not delivered. Before Bonniwell, J. The facts are stated in the opinion af the Superior Court. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $274.80 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned, inter alia, were various rulings of the court in admitting evidence over the objection of the defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
The plaintiff’s statement sets forth that he seeks to recover the sum of $240. (1) “For moneys paid under a verbal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendant agreed to sell and deliver unto the plaintiff four tons of grapes on or about September 9, 1919.” (2) “That the above-named defendant failed to deliver on or about September 9,1919, or at any time thereafter the said four tons of grapes, to the plaintiff or any person on behalf of the plaintiff.” (3) “Receipt for $240 is hereunto attached.” The above…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilkinson Manufacturing Co. v. WeldeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Zullinger v. GrebeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Friedman v. UrmannSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905