Swing v. Bates Machine Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 111, Oct. T., 1906, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, No. 1,133, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas C. Swing, trading as Swing & Bateman, v. Bates Machine Company. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due on a contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 111, Oct. T., 1906, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, No. 1,133, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas C. Swing, trading as Swing & Bateman, v. Bates Machine Company. Assumpsit for balance alleged to be due on a contract. Before Barratt, J. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the Superior Court it appeared that the contract in question was for furnishing and erecting all the steam, exhaust, feed and drip-piping for the complete piping system in the power house of the Hampton Roads Railway and Electric Co. at Hampton, Va.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The principal question in this case was whether H. M. Sciple was the agent of the defendant or was held out by the latter to be its agent. The contract declared' upon purported to be made for the defendant by Sciple. The defendant is a foreign corporation and it was conceded at the trial that Sciple was its registered state agent in Pennsylvania. There was some evidence that he was held out to be the commercial agent also of the defendant. With the knowledge and consent of the defendant, which was a manufacturer of high grade, heavy duty Corliss engines and boilers, he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Filbert v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Snodgrass v. GavitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1857