Field v. Schuster
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, Feb. T., 1904, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., April T., 1902, No. 98, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. S. Field v. George J. Schuster. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 19, Feb. T., 1904, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., April T., 1902, No. 98, on verdict for plaintiff in case of M. S. Field v. George J. Schuster. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Ormerod, P. J. At the trial defendant made this offer: The witness upon the stand, the plaintiff in the case, having testified-that the tobacco was delivered in accordance with the contract and. was undamaged and free from the kinds of tobacco mentioned in the contract to be excluded, it is now proposed to ask the witness if he did not afterwards assort this crop of tobacco…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The principal questions .of fact developed at the trial of this case were:
First. Whether the defendant accepted the tobacco before delivery; and ■
Secondly. Whether the plaintiff delivered it at the place and in the condition'provided for in’the contract.
Evidence was offered by the plaintiff tending to show that the defendant’s agent, who acted in the purchase of the tobacco, came to the plaintiff’s premises where the tobacco was stored and, after such inspection of it as.he cared to make, accepted it and directed that it be weighed and delivered on the cars at the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Golden v. WhiteDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1914
- Matthews v. Lilley Coal & Coke Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1916