Edson v. Magee
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 205, Oct. T., 1909, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 2,291, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of William D. Edson and Joseph S. McCullouch, trading as Edson Brothers, v. Horace L. Magee et al., trading as Magee Brothers. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Ralston, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $1,120.64. Defendants appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 205, Oct. T., 1909, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 2,291, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of William D. Edson and Joseph S. McCullouch, trading as Edson Brothers, v. Horace L. Magee et al., trading as Magee Brothers. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Ralston, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $1,120.64. Defendants appealed. Errors assigned were (1-22) various rulings on evidence and instructions.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
There is no dispute in regard to the terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The evidence shows a sale of 500 boxes of June butter for $5,750. The boxes were in the plaintiffs’ warehouse and were set apart and put in one of their cold storage rooms in accordance with the contract, the defendants to withdraw butter from time to time as their trade demanded. At the same time a storage receipt was given by the plaintiffs and accepted by the defendants in which the butter was described as “Lot 5216” in the storage room at 263 South Second street.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dustan v. . McAndrewNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Sands & Crump v. Taylor & LovettNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Ballentine v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
- Unexcelled Fire-Wks. Co. v. PolitesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- M'Combs v. M'KennanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Growers' Exchange v. John A. Eck Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1925
- Minkin v. FischerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Monticello Distilling Co. v. DannenhauerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Nomordust Chemical Co. v. J. A. Eberts & Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915