Kreamer v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 103, Jan. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., May T., 1897, No. 685, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit to recover tbe purchase price of a stock of merchandise. Before Biddle, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiffs. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $2,211.30. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 103, Jan. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Cumberland Co., May T., 1897, No. 685, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit to recover tbe purchase price of a stock of merchandise. Before Biddle, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for plaintiffs. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $2,211.30. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiffs. Under the evidence of the defendants there was proof of a deliberate attempt to conceal the real value of the goods to be sold, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The defendant, E. H. Smith, bought with ample opportunity to investigate the condition of the goods, and to ascertain their value. In making the inventory on which the purchase price was based lie had the assistance of an expert in the business, selected by himself, and acting in his intei’est. Prima facie,therefore, it was a case for the application of the ordinary rule of caveat emptor. Nevertheless it may be conceded that if he had subordinated his own judgment to that of his vendor, and the latter put himself in a position of confidence, the defendant may…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clay v. Western Maryland RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
- Griffith v. HerrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901