Nazareth Foundry & Machine Co. v. Beck
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 218, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment ofC. P. Northampton Co., Dec. T., 1915, No. 44, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Nazareth Foundry & Machine Co. v. Granville Beck. Assumpsit for repairs to an automobile owned by defendant’s son. Before McKeen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $47.29. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action arises on an alleged parol agreement of the defendant to pay a bill held by the plaintiff against the defendant’s son, Jacob. The account is for work and material furnished to the son in the repair of an automobile which the latter requested the plaintiff to supply. The plaintiff’s manager gives the following account of the transaction: “Q. What was the conversation you had with him? A. I told Mr. Beck that his son, Jacob, had some work to be done on his automobile; if it would be satisfactory for us to do that work. He said it would. And I said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Russell v. Clark's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Nugent v. WolfeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Haverly v. MercurSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Gable v. GraybillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Tucker v. BittingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Jefferson-Travis, Inc. v. Giant Eagle Markets, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
- Riley v. KahanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917