Smith, Kline & French Co. v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 12, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., September Term, 1893, No. 110, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for breach of contract to deliver goods.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 12, July T., 1894, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., September Term, 1893, No. 110, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. Assumpsit for breach of contract to deliver goods. Plaintiff’s statement was as follows: “On the thirty-first day of August, 1893, at the county of Philadelphia, the said plaintiff, at -the special instance and request of the said defendant bargained for and agreed to buy of the said defendant one hundred gross of boxes of Mrs. R. M. Hunter’s invisible powder, upon the following terms, to wit: that…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Mitchell,
It is not worth while to enter into the elaborate discussions in the cases about the right of a vendor to praise his wares, and the insufficiency of general affirmations of value, and false representations, which the other party should have known better than to rely upon, to justify a rescission. In Graffenstein v. Epstein, 23 Kans. 443, it was held that a false and fraudulent representation as to the market price of a commodity made by a purchaser who knew the price, to a seller who did not, would not avoid the contract. The opinion of Bbeweb, J., contains as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Graffenstein v. E. Epstein & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Kabatchnick v. Hanover-Elm Building Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1952
- Schultheis v. SellersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Brody v. FosterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Edelman v. LatshawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Stockley v. McClurgSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.