Lovegrove v. Christman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1894, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 476, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover price of boiler. Defendant pleaded “ non assumpsit ” and “ payment.”
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 195, Jan. T., 1894, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1891, No. 476, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover price of boiler. Defendant pleaded “ non assumpsit ” and “ payment.” At the trial defendant claimed to deduct from plaintiff’s demand 1166.68 for loss of four months’ rent for the premises in ■which the boiler was to be used, arising by reason of the failure of plaintiff to deliver the boiler within the time agreed upon. Defendant was the owner of two adjoining mill properties, No. 2924 Park avenue, a planing mill, where the boiler was…
1Opinion of the Court
•Opinion by
Mb. Justice McCollum,
The single question presented by this appeal is whether the learned court below erred in rejecting the defendant’s evidence, and offers of evidence that, in consequence of the plaintiff’s failure to deliver the boiler at the time stipulated in the contract, he lost three months’ rent of his building on Broad street. The ground on which the evidence was rejected was that it was inadmissible under the pleadings. The learned judge thought, and so held, that in order to introduce an item of this character by way of set-off, recoupment or equitable defence, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bandel v. EricksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897