Ryan v. Ulmer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 290. 1 Assumpsit, by Jacob Ulmer against Wiliam Ryan and-Thomas J. Ryan, trading as William Ryan & Son, to recover ■ damages for a breach of an alleged implied warranty of certain meat sold by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe Court of Common Pleas, No. 3, of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 290. 1 Assumpsit, by Jacob Ulmer against Wiliam Ryan and-Thomas J. Ryan, trading as William Ryan & Son, to recover ■ damages for a breach of an alleged implied warranty of certain meat sold by the defendants to the plaintiff. The narr. was in the following form: “.....That in consideration that the said plaintiff at the special instance and request of the said defendants would buy of the said defendants a large quantity of cured pork for the food of man at and for a certain price or sum of money, to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gordon
The action in this case was in assumpsit on an implied warranty of goods sold by the defendants below to the plaintiff.
The sale was of 140 tierces sweet piclded pork shoulders, deliverable on board the cars at Dubuque, and was negotiated through R. W. Roloson, a provision broker in the city of Chicago, who acted as the common agent of both parties. Both plaintiff and defendants were packers and dealers in pork; the place of business of the latter was at Dubuque, and that of the former in Pottsville of this state. The transaction, then, in brief, stands thus: Ulmer ordered the goods, as above…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Seixas v. WoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Holden v. DakinNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Livingston & Co. ex rel. Sellers v. StevensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894