Robeson v. Pels
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 41, on verdict for defendant in case of Jacob S. Robeson v. Siegfried Pels. Assumpsit on a contract alleged to have been made by cablegrams. Before Willson, P. J. From tbe record it appeared that plaintiff was a metal broker doing business in Philadelphia. The de Cendant resided in Hamburg.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 295, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 41, on verdict for defendant in case of Jacob S. Robeson v. Siegfried Pels. Assumpsit on a contract alleged to have been made by cablegrams. Before Willson, P. J. From tbe record it appeared that plaintiff was a metal broker doing business in Philadelphia. The de Cendant resided in Hamburg. Tbe three telegrams on which tbe alleged contract was based were as follows: 1. Robeson fe>. Pels, June 22, 1899: “I can sell c. i. f. 300 tons ferro monthly shipment fifty next six months $66.’ Will…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The question in the case is, whether or not there was a contract between the parties, and that depends on whether a qualified acceptance by defendant of plaintiff’s offer to sell was accepted by plaintiff and defendant notified in time. That was a question of fact and as such was properly left to the jury.
*404Defendant’s cabled message was received by plaintiff about eight o’clock on Saturday morning and after correction of two misspelled words in the cipher, was again received about noon. The message requested acceptance by telegram, but no answer was sent by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Patterson v. Gallitzin Building & Loan Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Baker v. SpectorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Dawson v. VrostyakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919