New York Tartar Co. v. French
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 289, Jan. T., 1893, by defendants, Harry B. French et al., from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1890, No. 121, on case tried by court without jury. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The case was tried by the court, Pennypacker, J., without a jury, under the act of April 22, 1874. The facts as found by the court are quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Reported below in 1 Dist.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 289, Jan. T., 1893, by defendants, Harry B. French et al., from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1890, No. 121, on case tried by court without jury. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The case was tried by the court, Pennypacker, J., without a jury, under the act of April 22, 1874. The facts as found by the court are quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Reported below in 1 Dist. R. 601. Exceptions to the opinion and finding of the trial judge were as follows: “ 1. It should have been held that the contract of sale was executory in this : That there was to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
This case was tried by the court without a jury under the act of April 22,1874. The material facts, as found by the trial judge, are very clearly stated in his opinion, which we quote:
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of chemicals in the city of New York, and the defendants, a firm dealing in drugs and chemicals, doing business in the city of Philadelphia, entered into three written contracts for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendants of cream of tartar and tartaric acid. The first of these contracts, dated January 11,1889, was a sale of “ 20 casks of their cream…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thorne v. DeasNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wilson v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Moore v. RohrbackerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- McDowell v. Covert & JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919