Steele v. Ellmaker
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, from which the record was removed by writ of error, declared, that he had sent to the defendants, who were auctioneers in the city of Philadelphia, certain goods, together with an invoice of their sterling value, “to be disposed of by them at the average price of fifty per cent, advance on the sterling cost, as quoted in said invoice, but not otherwise.”
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the District Court for the city and county of Philadelphia, from which the record was removed by writ of error, declared, that he had sent to the defendants, who were auctioneers in the city of Philadelphia, certain goods, together with an invoice of their sterling value, “to be disposed of by them at the average price of fifty per cent, advance on the sterling cost, as quoted in said invoice, but not otherwise.” The defendants sold the goods for less than the limited price, and the plaintiff claimed the difference between it and the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Tilghman, C. J.
This is an action brought by David Ellmaher against Steele and Potter, licenced auctioneers in the city of Philadelphia.
The plaintiff sent to the defendants certain goods, and an invoice of their sterling cost, with orders “ to sell them out at auction, at an average price of 50 per cent, advance on the sterling cost, as quoted in the invoice, and not otherwise.” The defendants sold the goods at less than the limited price, and the plaintiff claims the difference, between the limited price, and the price for which the goods were sold.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Veazie v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Kearney v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
- Miller v. BaynardSupreme Court of Delaware · 1863