Stephenson v. Grim
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county : Of May Term 1882, Ho. 37. Assumpsit, by Daniel K. Grim, Ileniy Grim and George Grim, trading as D. K. Grim & Oo., against George Stephenson, to recover the price of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff's to defendant. Plea non-assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia county : Of May Term 1882, Ho. 37. Assumpsit, by Daniel K. Grim, Ileniy Grim and George Grim, trading as D. K. Grim & Oo., against George Stephenson, to recover the price of goods alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff's to defendant. Plea non-assumpsit. On the trial, before El well, P. J., the facts appeared to be as follows : — On December 31st, 1879, James W. Stephenson called at the store of Grim & Co., in Philadelphia, and selected a lot of dry goods of the value of $131.39. Mr. Grim, being unacquainted with Stephenson, asked…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Tbctekey
To maintain the-issue on their part, the plaintiffs offered a paper purporting to be a shipping receipt given to them by the railroad company for a box of goods directed to Joseph Stephenson. This offer was received against the defendant’s objection, though the receipt, if genuine, was the mere admission of a stranger to the alleged contract, and its genuineness was not proved. It was competent to prove that the goods were shipped to the defendant by any person who knew the fact, whether the witness was plaintiff, drayman, or agent for the carrier. The oral or written declaration of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Farley v. KlineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1899