Seth Thomas Clock Co. v. Dobbins
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 3, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., May T., 1891, No. 441, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Seth Thomas Clock Company v. Edwin A. Dobbins. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Henning, J. At the trial it appeared that on July 9,1890, defendant wrote to the plaintiff as follows: “Edwin A. Dobbins; wholesale grocer, American House Building, Pottsville, Pa., July 9th, 1890. See your letters of April 5th and 9th.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 3, Oct. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., May T., 1891, No. 441, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Seth Thomas Clock Company v. Edwin A. Dobbins. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Henning, J. At the trial it appeared that on July 9,1890, defendant wrote to the plaintiff as follows: “Edwin A. Dobbins; wholesale grocer, American House Building, Pottsville, Pa., July 9th, 1890. See your letters of April 5th and 9th. Seth Thomas Clock Company. Gentlemen. I have been experimenting with your No. 8 and No. 10 duplex lever movements (I forget…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The learned judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff. In this he committed error. There-were certainly two questions which should have been submitted to the jury. The first was whether the nineteen days during which the defendant waited to receive an answer to his order for the work, before giving notice of rescission, was a reasonable time. If it was, his act of rescission barred the plaintiff’s right of recovery, since the defendant’s letter of July 9 was a request to do work, not a reply closing a proposition theretofore made by the plaintiff.
The second…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hardt v. Heller Bros.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1947