Legal Opinion

New Prague Flouring Mill Co. v. Kirschner

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 10, 1918No. Appeal, No. 34PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal, No. 34, March T,( 1918, by plaintiff from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 304, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of New Prague Flouring Mill Company v. John Kirschner. Assumpsit for breach of a contract to purchase flour. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 34, March T,( 1918, by plaintiff from order of C. P. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1917, No. 304, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of New Prague Flouring Mill Company v. John Kirschner. Assumpsit for breach of a contract to purchase flour. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. From the record it appeared that on June 4,1915, defendant ordered from the plaintiff, through its agent, W. J. Thornton, 420 barrels of flour to be shipped on future dates. This order was given on one of the printed blanks of the…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Williams, J.,

Plaintiff declared for breach of a contract to purchase flour.

Defendant’s affidavit averred that, according to a custom of the business, telegraphic confirmation from the mill was necessary within twenty-four hours after placing the order, or the buyer could treat it as cancelled.

Plaintiff moved for judgment because the custom was not averred with the necessary particularity. April 4, 1917, the court made the following order: “If......supplemental affidavit be not filed within ten days after notice hereof, the rule on motion will be made absolute.” April 17th, judgment…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Abeles v. PowellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Haverford Township School District v. HerzogSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Dormont Motors, Inc. for Use v. HoerrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Kappel v. MethSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Claro Milling Co. v. Davis Bros., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County1918

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API