Leggoe v. Mayer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 105, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 642, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for machinery sold and delivered. Before Fin-letter, P. J. It appeared from tbe evidence tbat the plaintiff claimed to recover $218 balance due for certain file machines delivered under defendant’s written order; also $73.79 for extra work and material.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 105, Nov. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 642, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit for machinery sold and delivered. Before Fin-letter, P. J. It appeared from tbe evidence tbat the plaintiff claimed to recover $218 balance due for certain file machines delivered under defendant’s written order; also $73.79 for extra work and material. There was evidence tending to show on the part of the defendants that plaintiff delivered all but one of the machines which were properly constructed and that the remaining machine, a rolling…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beaver, J.,
The action here is assumpsit; the pleas non assumpsit, set-off, etc. Under the plea of set-off, the defendants claimed to recover back $282 advanced on account of the construction of the machine, the contract price of which was the basis of the claim for recovery. As the case was disposed of in the court below, this part of it seems to have been lost sight of and is not now specially important. As the case goes back for a retrial, however, it may be well to keep it in mind, inasmuch as it may be important, if the jury should find the facts as contended for by the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barnhart v. RiddleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857
- Centenary M. E. Church v. ClimeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
- Gould v. LeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1867
- Wright v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Wade v. HaycockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hartford Battery Sales Corp. v. PriceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Crown Printing Co. v. Charles Beck Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Hurst v. HillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Hagen Co. v. GreenwoodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Hurst v. HillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911