Portland Ice Co. v. Connor
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 220, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 4514, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in cáse of Portland Ice Company v. Edward Connor, trading as Friendship Ice Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Error assigned was the order of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
In March, 1902, plaintiff contracted in writing with defendant to sell to the latter a certain number of tons of ice each year for four years at a stipulated price per ton, the same to be loaded on cars and shipped by plaintiff as ordered by defendant : “ payments to be made weekly upon presentation of bills for the same.” This action was brought to recover for installments delivered between May 26, 1908, and June 25, 1903. Plaintiff alleges in its statement the presentation of weekly bills for these installments and defendant’s failure to pay them, and that “…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rugg & Bryan v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Easton v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Forsyth v. North American Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
- Reybold v. VoorheesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Hazleton Coal Co. v. Buck Mountain Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Warren Tank Car Co. v. DodsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Riddle Co. v. TaubelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Stone v. C. I. T. Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Honesdale Ice Co. v. Lake Lodore Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- C. Trevor Dunham, Inc. v. NemitzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.