Brock v. McCaffrey
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 114, Nov. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 270, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit for goods sold. Before McMichael, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 114, Nov. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 270, on verdict for plaintiffs. Assumpsit for goods sold. Before McMichael, J. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Superior Court. Errors assigned were, (1) in charging the jury as follows : “ There seems to be no contradiction in the testimony, as it is direct and to the very point of the case, especially the testimony that the goods were of a specific character, not only as to the quantity of the oil, but as to the marking of the bottles with the names of these…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Reeder, J.,
The plaintiffs are wholesale grocers, importers, among other things of French table delicacies — oils and olives. They obtained from the defendants a contract for one hundred cases of olive oil. Twenty-five cases were shipped and delivered to the defendants, for which they paid. Seventy-five cases were never actually delivered to the defendants, and never paid for by them. This suit is brought to recover for those seventy-five cases which were never actually received by the defendants, and which the plaintiffs claim were set apart to their order, and never paid for, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ridgway v. Baizley Iron Works, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911