Charlotte Furnace Co. v. Stouffer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE EAYETTE COUNTY. No. 345 January Term 1889, Sup.' Ct.; court below, No. 113 June Term 1885, C. P. On March 31, 1885, the Charlotte Furnace Co. brought replevin against Cyrus Stouffer, to recover a certain inclined plane and its appurtenances, located at Mt. Vernon. The defendant pleaded non cepit and property in himself.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OE EAYETTE COUNTY. No. 345 January Term 1889, Sup.' Ct.; court below, No. 113 June Term 1885, C. P. On March 31, 1885, the Charlotte Furnace Co. brought replevin against Cyrus Stouffer, to recover a certain inclined plane and its appurtenances, located at Mt. Vernon. The defendant pleaded non cepit and property in himself. At the trial on February 14, 1888, the plaintiff put in evidence the following written proposition and acceptance : “ I agree to deliver the Charlotte Furnace Co. three thousand (3000) tons of ore at rate of fifteen (15) tons per day at…
1Opinion of the Court
*340Opinion,
Mr. Justice Green:
The nonsuit ordered in this case can only be sustained upon the theory that the plaintiff’s testimony showed such an interest of the defendant in the inclined plane, to recover which the action was brought, as to deprive the plaintiff of any right of recovery therefor. After a repeated and most thorough reading of the testimony, we fail to discover such evidence. By the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant the plaintiff was to build the plane at its own expense and the testimony shows this was done. It was further agreed that the defendant was to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Daly Bros. Shoe Co. v. H. Jacob & Sons, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1943