Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Ramsey

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 20, 1914No. Appeal, No. 102PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 29, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John S. Reynolds v. Winfield S. Ramsey. Appeal from judgment of a justice of the peace. Before Landis, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The trial judge charged in part as follows: If the verdict should be for the plaintiff, then, and then only, the jury must ascertain the damages' sustained.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 102, Oct. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 29, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John S. Reynolds v. Winfield S. Ramsey. Appeal from judgment of a justice of the peace. Before Landis, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The trial judge charged in part as follows: If the verdict should be for the plaintiff, then, and then only, the jury must ascertain the damages' sustained. The plaintiff claims, and has set forth in his statement a claim for $82.50, being the difference between the purchase price paid…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

This is an action on a warranty alleged to have been given on the sale of a horse. The proceeding was commenced before a magistrate and appealed to the court of common pleas. While the declaration sets forth a state of facts which would support an action of deceit the cause of action is declared to be the contract of warranty and this must be so for the deceit was not *99cognizable before the magistrate and the action must stand on the contract if it is to be sustained. There was evidence of an express warranty and the finding of the jury established that fact. The…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Himes v. KiehlSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  2. Seigworth v. LeffelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
  3. Freyman v. KnechtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
  4. Miller Lock Co. v. Diehl Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. Shoe v. MaerkySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pasquinelli v. Southern Macaroni Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Samuel v. Delaware River Steel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  3. March v. EvansSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API