Pallman v. Smith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PEOM THE COUET OP COMMON PLEAS OP MCKEAN COUNTY. No. 115 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 249 December Term 1885, C. P. On December 8, 1885, Frank Pallman brought covenant against M. J. Smifcli. Issue.
Read the full summary
APPEAL BY DEPENDANT PEOM THE COUET OP COMMON PLEAS OP MCKEAN COUNTY. No. 115 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 249 December Term 1885, C. P. On December 8, 1885, Frank Pallman brought covenant against M. J. Smifcli. Issue. At the trial on February 12, 1889, it was made to appear that on September 2, 1884, Pallman and Smith entered into a contract under seal by which Pallman sold to Smith all tlie “ hemlock logs, botli peeled and unpeeled,” on Pallman’s land, to be delivered in the river from the said laud before March 1, 1885, for “ $4.12J per thousand feet, per Dusenbury rule,…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam:
Our examination of this record satisfies us that the judgment should be affirmed. The question of plaintiff’s compliance with his contract was submitted to the jury under proper instructions. They were distinctly told that unless there was a substantial compliance he could not recover. The amount of logs delivered and the balance due plaintiff under the contract were questions for the jury.
No error is perceived in the admission of the testimony of the plaintiff in regard to the measure of the logs kept on the boards. The contract between the parties does not specify who shall keep…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Traylor v. GraftonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Austin v. Brown Bros.Idaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Pressy v. McCornackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Fleming v. YostIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Snedaker v. TorpeySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.