Barber Milling Co. v. Leichthammer Baking Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 224, Jan. T., 1922, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1920, No. 40, for defendant on case tried by the court without a jury, in suit of Barber Milling Co. y. Leichthammer Baking Co. Assumpsit for breach of contract tried without a jury. Before Miller, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Judgment for defendant: see 37 Montgomery Co. L. R. 204. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned, inter alia, was judgment, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schafeee,
Plaintiff, a milling company in Minneapolis, sold to defendant, a baker in Norristown, four hundred barrels of rye flour for future delivery. Under the terms of sale, the freight to destination was to be paid by the seller. Before the delivery date, the purchaser notified the seller of cancellation of the sale and repudiated the contract. Plaintiff refused to acquiesce in the abrogation of the agreement, shipped the flour to defendant at Norris-town, the place of delivery, and, upon vendee’s refusal to accept, endeavored to sell the flour in Norristown,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kadish v. YoungIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
- Zuck v. McClure & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- McHenry v. BulifantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Woldert Grocery Co. v. WilkinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by14 opinions
- William B. Tanner Co., Inc., and Pepper & Tanner, Inc. v. Wioo, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. Bryant Paper Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Pottash v. Albany Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Huessener v. Fishel & Marks Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.