Morgan Engineering Co. v. McKee
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 248, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1891, No. 863, on verdict for defendant, H. Sellers McKee. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial, before Sla(Jle, J.,- plaintiffs claimed to recover the price of four motors and one dynamo constructed under an order given by John C. Henry, alleged to be the agent of defendant. Henry was the owner of certain patents for electric railway equipment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 248, Oct. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., June T., 1891, No. 863, on verdict for defendant, H. Sellers McKee. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. At the trial, before Sla(Jle, J.,- plaintiffs claimed to recover the price of four motors and one dynamo constructed under an order given by John C. Henry, alleged to be the agent of defendant. Henry was the owner of certain patents for electric railway equipment. On May 31,1890, he entered into the following agreement in writing with defendant: “ Pittsburgh, Pa., May 31,1890. “ For and in…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was an attempt on the part of the plaintiff company to recover from the defendant a large sum of money upon a contract to which the company was not a party, and which was not made for its benefit. The learned judge below in answer to defendant’s point properly instructed the jury to find a verdict in his favor.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Congress Coal & Transportation Co. v. International Steamship Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925