Mead & Speer Co. v. Krimm
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 15, March T., 1910, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., March T., 1909, No. 153, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mead & Speer Company v. Charles R. Krimm et al., trading under the firm name of Williamsport Planing Mill Company. Assumpsit on a contract of sale. Before Hart, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $551.05. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 15, March T., 1910, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., March T., 1909, No. 153, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mead & Speer Company v. Charles R. Krimm et al., trading under the firm name of Williamsport Planing Mill Company. Assumpsit on a contract of sale. Before Hart, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $551.05. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was in not entering judgment for defendants non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
This action of assumpsit was brought upon a book account to recover the price of lumber sold and delivered. One of the defenses was that it was delivered under an entire contract which the plaintiff had not substantially performed. The question raised by the single assignment of error is, whether under all of the evidence the court should have given binding direction in favor of the defendants.
The defendants delivered simultaneously to the plaintiff two orders numbered respectively 670 and 671 and dated October 27, 1904, the first for 1,000 feet of 4/4 red oak, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Philadelphia v. StewartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Seligman v. BeecherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dodge v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Duluth Superior Milling Co. v. BinenstockSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932