Allen v. Kirwan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 72, Jan. T., 1894, by-plaintiffs, E. F. Kirwan et al., trading as Kirwan & Tyler, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1891, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiff, R. J. Allen Son & Co. Assumpsit begun by foreign attachment. Rule to dissolve attachment. Before Bbrgy, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Binding instructions were given for plaintiffs, and refused for defendants. [2, 8] Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 72, Jan. T., 1894, by-plaintiffs, E. F. Kirwan et al., trading as Kirwan & Tyler, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dee. T., 1891, No. 11, on verdict for plaintiff, R. J. Allen Son & Co. Assumpsit begun by foreign attachment. Rule to dissolve attachment. Before Bbrgy, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Binding instructions were given for plaintiffs, and refused for defendants. [2, 8] Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Rule discharged. Errors assigned were (1) discharge of rule; (2, 8) instructions, quoting them.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
The learned judge of the court below gave a binding instruction to the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs for the *614full amount of their claim. If the various telegrams and letters given in evidence constituted a binding contract between the parties, there would probably have been no material error in the instruction, as there was no other defence made than that there was no contract for five hundred gross of jars as claimed by the plaintiff. This brings us directly to the question whether any actual contract was established by the telegrams and letters.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beaupré v. Pacific & Atlantic Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Moulton v. KershawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Ashcroft v. ButterworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Slaymaker v. IrwinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Ahearn v. AyresMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BroderickIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913
- Dougherty v. BriggsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Henry v. GauthreauxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- P. Berry & Sons, Inc. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Chinook Lumber, & Shingle Co. v. McLane Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.