Shaw v. Badger
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR, Writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, in which a bill of exceptions to evidence was returned with the record. In the court below, it was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, Bela Badger, agaitist Robert Shaw, the plaintiff in error, in which he declared for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, and upon an insimul com-putassent.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, Writ of error to the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, in which a bill of exceptions to evidence was returned with the record. In the court below, it was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, Bela Badger, agaitist Robert Shaw, the plaintiff in error, in which he declared for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, and upon an insimul com-putassent. The,plaititiff proved by Thomas Heiskill, his agent, that he had sold and delivered to the defendant,-five head of cattle for two hundred and seventeen dollars; that he had…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Duncan, J.
The defendant below did not offer the evidence by way of defeating the action, but as a set-off or equitable defence, *276under the plea of payment; so far claiming a deduction from the demand, as he was damnified by breach of contract on the vendor’s part, in not delivering him the sheep. If Shaw had refused to proceed on the contract totally, on the ground that Badger had disposed of the sheep to others, and had been sued, no doubt this objection would have prevailed; for although they were separate articles, and sold for separate prices, it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Steigleman v. JeffriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1815
- Heck v. ShenerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
- Gogel v. JacobySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hubler v. TamneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836