Estes v. Kauffman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1909, No. 38, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Herbert Estes v. John A. Kauffman, trading as The Conestoga Paper Company. Assumpsit for goods. Before Landis, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Error assigned was order entering judgment for plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Porter, J.,
The plaintiff brought this action of assumpsit to recover the contract price for eighteen tons of wrapping paper, under a contract evidenced exclusively by written correspondence. The contract stipulated for a delivery of the paper, by the plaintiff to the defendant, free on board the cars at Ausable Chasm, N. Y., at a specified price. The plaintiff did deliver a lot of paper, to the quantity required by the contract, free on board the cars of a common carrier, at the point designated, consigned to the defendant. With regard to the facts thus far stated there is no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buffington v. QuantinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851
3Cited by7 opinions
- Elzea v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Marquette-Bailey Lumber Co. v. GibboneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Ireland Bros. v. Refowich Bros.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Lonker v. CohenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Luella Coal & Coke Co. v. GanoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.