Jennings v. Gratz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This cause was tried before Tod. J. at JVisi Prius, on the 24th of November, 1829, when a verdict was given for the plaintiffs for two thousand one hundred and forty-four dollars and twenty three cents. It now came before the court on a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, obtained by the counsel for the defendant.
Read the full summary
This cause was tried before Tod. J. at JVisi Prius, on the 24th of November, 1829, when a verdict was given for the plaintiffs for two thousand one hundred and forty-four dollars and twenty three cents. It now came before the court on a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, obtained by the counsel for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiffs, who were auctioneers, on the 13th of April, 1825, exposed to sale at their own auction store a quantity of teas. They were described in a catalogue, printed and distributed previously to the sale, as teas of various…
1Per curiam
In Borrekins v. Bevan, it was determined at the last term, that the seller is not answerable for the quality of an article that has been inspected and received by the buyer, provided it be, in specie, the thing for which it has been sold. In the case at bar, the teas were proved to be adulterated with certain leaves, which, it is believed, do not belong to the tea family. But it was also shown, that no teas of the same denomination, are entirely free from adulteration by admixture of these same leaves; and if a small degree of adulteration were permitted to affect the question of specific…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gunther v. AtwellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
- Dailey v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Hastings v. LoveringMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1824