Lord v. Grow
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, to the Common Pleas of Susquehanna county. This case came into the Common Pleas by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, before whom it was commenced by John Lord against F. P. Grow & Brothers. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit, payment, and set-off with leave, &c. The case was this:— On the 9th of April 1859, the plaintiff went to the defendants, who are dealers in grain, for the purpose of purchasing some seed spring wheat, for sowing.
Read the full summary
Error, to the Common Pleas of Susquehanna county. This case came into the Common Pleas by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, before whom it was commenced by John Lord against F. P. Grow & Brothers. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit, payment, and set-off with leave, &c. The case was this:— On the 9th of April 1859, the plaintiff went to the defendants, who are dealers in grain, for the purpose of purchasing some seed spring wheat, for sowing. He asked E. P. Grow, one of the defendants, whether he had any good seed spring wheat. Mr. Grow answered in the affirmative. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered,
by Strong, J.
We have here the bald question whether, in sales of personal property on inspection, without express warranty, the law presumes an engagement on the part of the vendor, that the article sold is of the species contemplated by the parties. No doubt there is such an undertaking where sales are made by sample. In such cases, the vendor warrants that the bulk of the article shall correspond in kind with the sample. The tendency of the modern cases has also been to the doctrine that in sales of articles in regard to which the seller is presumed to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Strawbridge v. HawthorneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972