Tranter Davison Manufacturing Co. v. Pittsburg Trolley Pole Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 94, April T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 900, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit1 of defense in case of Tranter Davison Manufacturing Company v. Pittsburg Trolley Pole Company. Assumpsit for a boiler sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 94, April T., 1903, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1902, No. 900, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit1 of defense in case of Tranter Davison Manufacturing Company v. Pittsburg Trolley Pole Company. Assumpsit for a boiler sold and delivered. The affidavit^f defense was in part as follows: Affiant admits that on May 3, 1902, a contract was entered into between the affiant, representing the defendant company, and the plaintiff company, but denies that the alleged copy attached to plaintiff’s statement is a true and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This action was brought to recover the price of a boiler sold and delivered to the defendant under a written contract, which, according to the defendant’s allegation, contained the following clause under the head, “ Delivery.” “ Above to be delivered in good shipping order, f. o. b. cars Dayton, Ohio, freight allowed to Pittsburg, within thirty days of receipt of acceptance of the proposition, subject to delay caused by labor troubles or other cause bej’ond our control.” There is no denial in the affidavit of defense that the boiler was delivered to and retained by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wodock v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Myers v. KippSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Commonwealth Title, etc., Co. v. FolzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902