Siemens Regenerative Gas Lamp Co. v. Horstman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error, No. 25, July T., 1888, to C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action on the case, by F. .0. Horstman et al., trading as William H. Horstman & Sons, against The Siemens Regenerative Gas Lamp Co., to recover a sum alleged to have been agreed upon, on failure of certain lamps, purchased by plaintiffs, to prove satisfactory, at March T., 1886, No. 409. Plaintiff offered in evidence the following letter, which was admitted without…
Read the full summary
Error, No. 25, July T., 1888, to C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., to review a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action on the case, by F. .0. Horstman et al., trading as William H. Horstman & Sons, against The Siemens Regenerative Gas Lamp Co., to recover a sum alleged to have been agreed upon, on failure of certain lamps, purchased by plaintiffs, to prove satisfactory, at March T., 1886, No. 409. Plaintiff offered in evidence the following letter, which was admitted without objection: “The Siemens Regenerative Gas Lamp Co., “ The Sole Manufacturers for the United States of the “ Siemens…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The question here is whether J. W. Baker was such an agent of the company as authorized him to bind it by his letter of Jan. 5, 1884, addressed to the plaintiff below, by which he offered to put the Siemens burners in their mill, with the agreement that if, “ after using them for one year, you find they do not answer your purpose, or that they get out of order, I will purchase them back from you at one-half the price they cost you in putting them in.” This letter was signed by Baker as the general agent. The plaintiffs below accepted the offer, had the burners put in their mill…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clow-Schaaf Lumber Co. v. KassSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912