Wax v. Roydhouse Arey Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 213, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 393, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Abraham Wax and Louis Lenenberg, trading as Camden Iron & Metal Works, v. Roydhouse Arey Company. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before AudenRIED, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $684. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 213, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 393, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Abraham Wax and Louis Lenenberg, trading as Camden Iron & Metal Works, v. Roydhouse Arey Company. Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before AudenRIED, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $684. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was refusal to enter judgment for defendant n. o. v.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kephart, J.,
The only question involved in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish an agency giving authority to one of the employees connected with the defendant to sell certain iron beams. The defendant was engaged in taking down an old building. This employee was on the ground looking after the work. The plaintiff purchased from him iron and junk, “including beams, stairways, and miscellaneous scrap, such as pipes, wiring, etc.”
It is the defendant’s contention that the employee, H. M. Roydhouse, who was a son of the president of the defendant company, was not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Benjamin v. HolgateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912