Pyroleum Appliance Co. v. Williamsport Hardware & Stove Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1895, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1894, No. 51, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a contract in writing. Before Metzger, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover for burners sold and delivered to defendant under a contract in writing, dated August 24, 1893. The contract was executed by J. H. Linck, chairman of the defendant company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1895, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1894, No. 51, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on a contract in writing. Before Metzger, P. J. At the trial it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover for burners sold and delivered to defendant under a contract in writing, dated August 24, 1893. The contract was executed by J. H. Linck, chairman of the defendant company. Defendant claimed that the representations of William Grauer, plaintiff’s agent, were the inducement for signing the contract, and that these representations were false. Linck…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
While it is true that the testimony of George Ketchum was not formally excluded from the consideration of the jury, it seems to us that the comments of the learned judge of the court below, complained of in the first assignment of error, and in the immediate context of the charge, imply that his testimony was not to be considered as the testimony of another witness than Linck who signed the contract. We think the jury would be led to infer that they could only Regard the evidence as containing the testimony of one witness directly and of concurring circumstances,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pusic v. SalakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Gas v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Keystone Axle Co. v. LeydaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898