Whitehall Mfg. Co. v. Wise Brothers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR TO THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. No. 144 July Term 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 38 April Term 1885, C. P. On March 16, 1885, an action in assumpsit was brought by the Whitehall Manufacturing Company of Whitehall, Mich., against L. R. Wise et al., trading as Wise Brothers, at Bangor, Pa., to recover for lumber sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY. No. 144 July Term 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 38 April Term 1885, C. P. On March 16, 1885, an action in assumpsit was brought by the Whitehall Manufacturing Company of Whitehall, Mich., against L. R. Wise et al., trading as Wise Brothers, at Bangor, Pa., to recover for lumber sold and delivered. At the trial on January 20, 1887, it was made to appear: On October 22,1884, the defendants ordered of the plaintiff company “a car of No. 3 siding at same price as before, spot cash as soon as delivered.” A car of siding arrived at…
1Opinion of the Court
*493Opinion,
Mr. Justice Green:
The article which the defendants ordered was “ a car of No. 3 siding.” The defence set up against the plaintiff’s claim was that the lumber sent to them by the plaintiff was not No. 3 siding, but No. 4 siding. It is perfectly manifest from all the testimony that in the trade there was a very palpable difference between the kind of siding known as No. 3 and the kind known as No. 4. It is equally certain that the value of No. 4 was materially less than the value of No. 3. It is not questioned that if the kind sent to the defendants ivas No. 4, they were not legally…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Joseph v. RichardsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Louis Werner Saw Mill Co. v. FerreeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Operators Fuel Agency v. Eastern Fuel Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924