Johnson v. Freemann
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 375, Jan. T., 1893, by-defendant, J. S. Freemann, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1885, No. 298, on verdict for plaintiffs, Israel H. Johnson, Jr., et al., trading as Israel H. Johnson & Co. Assumpsit for work, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 375, Jan. T., 1893, by-defendant, J. S. Freemann, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1885, No. 298, on verdict for plaintiffs, Israel H. Johnson, Jr., et al., trading as Israel H. Johnson & Co. Assumpsit for work, etc. Before Pennypacker, J. At the trial, it appeared that, on Jan. 15, 1885, at defendant’s request, plaintiffs made the following proposition in writing: “We propose to build for you one Johnson’s Patent Street Paving Ramming Machine complete, with boiler and engine, as per drawings and specifications, for the sum of $1,650, exclusive of patterns,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Geeen,
The learned court below charged the jury as follows: “ It is for you to say whether the breaks which occurred and the diffi*325culties that arose when the machine was taken out for use, were due to inherent defects in the plans and patterns which were furnished, or whether they were due to the lack of proper workmanship on the part of the plaintiffs, or due to some want of skill in the parts designed by them or in the construction of those parts. If the defects are due to imperfect workmanship on the part of the plaintiffs or to any want in the materials which they…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dubois v. Bigler, Young & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reach v. National Bedding Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923