Cleaver v. Bullock
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to th.e Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1885, No. 71. This was an action of assumpsit, brought 29th November, 1882, to recover a balance alleged to be due plaintiff under a written contract for the erection of certain machinery in defendant’s mill. The pleas were non assumpsit, set-off, payment with leave, etc.
Read the full summary
Error to th.e Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1885, No. 71. This was an action of assumpsit, brought 29th November, 1882, to recover a balance alleged to be due plaintiff under a written contract for the erection of certain machinery in defendant’s mill. The pleas were non assumpsit, set-off, payment with leave, etc. After the case was at issue it was by agreement referred to E. Hunn Hanson, Esq., as referee, under the provisions of the Act of 14th May, 1874: P. L., 166. The referee proceeded to hear the case, and on July 17th, 1884, he reported inter…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Turnkey
Bullock contracted to furnish Cleaver certain machinery for a mill and put the same in operation, the price to be paid in three instalments, the last “when machinery has been run thirty days and proves satisfactory.” They stipulated that the machinery should be put in under the personal supervision of Mr. Justice J. Hendrickson who was the inventor of Hendrickson’s three-roll gradual reduction mill. The machinery was put in the mill under Hendrickson’s supervision, and the first two instalments of the price were paid. When completed, October 21st, 1882, the mill was set running under the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wheeling Stamping Company v. Birdsboro Steel Foundry & MacHine CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
- Bayer Steam Soot Blower Co. v. W. G. Cornell Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1917