Rothermel v. Phillips
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The court made a mistake in its statement that because the plaintiff had demanded no warranty, and had the opportunity to inspect the goods, he could not complain : Bower v. Fenn, 90 Pa. 359.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Sadler,
Phillips and Boyer, defendants, were the owners of a small country store in Berks County, which they had conducted for several years. In 1920, they advertised the business for sale, and, in April, learned that the plaintiff, Rothermel, was a possible purchaser. Communication with him led to an offer to dispose of the stock for the lump sum of $7,000, but he was then willing to buy only for a price to be fixed by an appraisement of the goods on hand, and this arrangement was agreed to. The owners began the sorting of the stock so that an examination could be made…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Southern Development Co. v. SilvaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Mahaffey v. FergusonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Fulton v. HoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Rockafellow v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Neill v. ShamburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Poe v. VossSupreme Court of Virginia · 1955
- Quashnock v. FrostSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Harrison v. WelshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Suraci v. BallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Warren Balderston Co. v. Integrity Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.