Griffith v. Herr
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 11, April T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2., Allegheny Co., April T., 1898, No. 802, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of A. R. Griffith v. M. M. Herr and H. L. Herr. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Shafer, J. At the trial it appeared that the note was given in part payment for the stock and fixtures of a millinery store.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 11, April T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2., Allegheny Co., April T., 1898, No. 802, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of A. R. Griffith v. M. M. Herr and H. L. Herr. Assumpsit on a promissory note. Before Shafer, J. At the trial it appeared that the note was given in part payment for the stock and fixtures of a millinery store. The court charged in part as follows: [The complaint on the part of the defendants is first, that all these things were taken at far too high a price. As a matter of course that could not be allowed by way of defense by itself. It was…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
This action is upon a promissory note given by the defendants to the plaintiff as part of the purchase money (due by M. M. Herr, one of the defendants) for the stock and fixtures of a millinery store. The sale was not hastily consummated. Ample opportunity was given to the purchaser to inspect. A written agreement prepared by the purchaser’s brother, H. L. Herr, was entered into setting forth the manner in which an inventory should be taken and a valuation put upon the goods. H. L. Herr (a business man of some experience) participated in the transaction and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Selser v. Roberts & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Kreamer v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898