Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Stephens
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 278, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., June T., 1915, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff in case of The Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company v. W. Fay Stephens, trading under the name of the A. A. Gordon Bottling Works. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before McKeen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for |526.68. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 278, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., June T., 1915, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff in case of The Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company v. W. Fay Stephens, trading under the name of the A. A. Gordon Bottling Works. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before McKeen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for |526.68. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and refusal of binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
This action of assumpsit was brought to recover for goods and merchandise; on the trial the verdict was directed for the plaintiff, the court saying, “The common sense view of matters of this kind is that, where a man buys a bill of goods and the goods are delivered and accepted he should pay for them.”
Without the éxcluded evidence, this represented a fair statement of the fact to be considered by the jury. However, the defendant offered to adduce proof on the trial to show that he was but a manager or agent of one A. A. Gordon, who was doing business as the Gordon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Schalcher v. BergdollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Kessler v. AfricaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917