Cincinnati Equipment Co. v. Strang
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 230, Jan. T., 1905, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Clearfield Co., Feb. T., 1904, No. 124, on verdict for defendant in case of Cincinnati Equipment Co. v. E. P. Strang, W. Forsythe, J. Lancaster Dailey and George W. Green, trading as Strang & Forsythe. Replevin for rails, steam shovel and cars. Before Smith, P. J. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. jError assigned was in refusing binding instructions for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewabt,
This controversy concerns none but the parties to it. The contract as they themselves made it, must determine their respective rights thereunder. The Cincinnati Equipment Company, plaintiff in the case, by written articles of agreement— we follow the language of the instrument — leased and demised unto the defendants sixty-nine 9/100 ton of 2240 rails, with three sets of frogs and switches; one industrial iron works steam shovel, and thirty dump cars; the rent therefor to be paid as follows : $2,000 cash, two notes, each for $1,609.30, and one for $1,599.30,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- U. S. Supply Co. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Liquid Carbonic Co. v. QuickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910