Legal Opinion

Lucas Coal Co. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 1892No. Appeal, No. 173PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal, No. 173, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., March T., 1889, No. 46, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit to recover the price of coal sold.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 173, Jan. T., 1892, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., March T., 1889, No. 46, on verdict for defendant. Assumpsit to recover the price of coal sold. At the trial before Gunsteb, J., the evidence was to the-following effect: Plaintiff company being engaged in the business of mining and shipping coal, made an agreement with defendant to mine, prepare and deliver coal, at the rate of 100,000 tons annually, defendant agreeing to pay for each ton of coal the price per ton paid by the Delaware, Lackawanna & W estern Railroad Co. to William Connell and others, in…

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The specifications of error here are too numerous to discuss in detail, nor is it necessary. The attempt to prove the market value of the coal sold and delivered to the defendant at the time of delivery, very properly failed, for the reason, the price was fixed by the contract between William Connell and others, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., *230offered in evidence. All the information needed, under that contract, could easily have been obtained by resorting to the usual legal remedies. The attendance of the officers or employees of the company could have been…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hostetter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
  2. Hartupee v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Patriotic Order Sons of America Hall Ass'n v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Zimmerman v. MarymorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Dickson v. DarnellWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Field v. DescalziSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  5. Hayday v. Hammermill Paper Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1931

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

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

Powered by the Exa API