Jones v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
THIS case is reported in 2 Watts ép Serg. 327, and came again before the court, in consequence of a difference of opinion between the parties, as to two items in the accounts, not disposed of at the former hearing. The defendant hád, since that time, paid over to the plaintiffs the sum of $27,911.45, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s claim to a further amount. This claim consisted of two items.
Read the full summary
THIS case is reported in 2 Watts ép Serg. 327, and came again before the court, in consequence of a difference of opinion between the parties, as to two items in the accounts, not disposed of at the former hearing. The defendant hád, since that time, paid over to the plaintiffs the sum of $27,911.45, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s claim to a further amount. This claim consisted of two items. The first was an alleged overcharge by the defendant of the sum of $1667, factory expenses of one ship, the Globe. The contract for the term of two years, beginning on the 13th of July 1828, (see 2…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
In the charge of full factory expenses for the Globe, there is a clear error of $1117, made on the one hand, and *112acquiesced in on the other, palpably by mistake. It appears by the defendant’s letters that the Newport and the Woodrop Sims had preceded that ship in her arrival at Canton in the same year, and he was consequently entitled by the terms of the contract to charge no more for her than $550. Now, though the charge was received without objection when the account was rendered, that does not preclude the other side from showing an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Olmstead v. BachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
- Tustin v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Sergeant's Executors v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858