Palmer v. General Flooring & Mfg. Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 268, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1915, No. 516, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Andrew L. Palmer and W. Wallace Gayley, trading as Palmer & Gayley, v. General Flooring and Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The case was tried by Knowles, J., without a jury. The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 268, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Feb. T., 1915, No. 516, for plaintiff on case tried by the court without a jury in suit of Andrew L. Palmer and W. Wallace Gayley, trading as Palmer & Gayley, v. General Flooring and Manufacturing Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The case was tried by Knowles, J., without a jury. The opinion of the Superior Court states the facts. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for $141.20. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were in refusing a new trial and in refusing judgment for defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Rice, P. J.,
The hardware and other materials, to recover the price of which this action was brought, were ordered, delivered and used for the repair of a mill in the City of Chester.
The account runs from April 7,1914, to July 2d of the same year. There is no dispute as to the price, quantity or quality of the goods. The defense set up at the trial was that they were not ordered by or delivered to the General Flooring and Mfg. Co., but that R. O. Scheel, who became president of the company on May 1, 1914, was exclusively liable for them in his individual capacity. The case was tried…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hanick v. LeaderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Haley v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Evans v. RuthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937