Armstrong v. Latimer, Meyers & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1894, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, Sept. T., 1892, No. 576, on a verdict for the plaintiff. Assumpsit for coal delivered. Before Stowe, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff, who was an owner and operator of coal mines, sold to defendants two retail coal yards in Pittsburg.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 107, Oct. T., 1894, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny County, Sept. T., 1892, No. 576, on a verdict for the plaintiff. Assumpsit for coal delivered. Before Stowe, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff, who was an owner and operator of coal mines, sold to defendants two retail coal yards in Pittsburg. A part of the agreement of sale was that all coal of a certain kind needed to run the yard should be purchased from him by defendants for the term of five years, and plaintiff agreed to furnish such coal unless there was a strike at his mines. The contract…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion -by
Mr. Justice Green,
While it is true that the contract between the parties was a continuing contract during a period of five 3rears, it is also true that one of the terms of the contract was, that “ Settlements for said coal shall be made upon the fifteenth day of each month for all coal delivered before the first day of such month.” On the trial, Robert Latimer, being one of the defendants and called as a witness on their behalf, was asked to tell about the quality of coal which the defendants received from the plaintiff from September 1,1890 to 1891. To this offer plaintiff’s…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sargent v. MasonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Wallace v. L. D. Clark & SonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Producers' Coke Co. v. McKeefrey Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1920