McHenry v. Bulifant
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 288, Jan. T., 1902, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1900, No. 731, on verdict for plaintiff in case of O. McHenry, trading as O. McHenry Seeded Raisin Company, v. Isaac Bulifant and Joseph Bulifant, trading as Bulifant & Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 288, Jan. T., 1902, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1900, No. 731, on verdict for plaintiff in case of O. McHenry, trading as O. McHenry Seeded Raisin Company, v. Isaac Bulifant and Joseph Bulifant, trading as Bulifant & Company. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Mc-Caethy, J. At the trial it appeared that the action was based on the alleged breach of contract of sale of fruit in California for delivery in Philadelphia and New York. Defendants filed an affidavit of defense in which they alleged that they had suffered damages by reason…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
On August 13, 1900, Bulifant & Company, appellants, contracted with the McHenry Company, the appellees, fruit growers of California, for the delivery to appellants in Philadelphia and New York of large quantities of prunes and raisins. The raisins were the crop of 1899, and were then on hand nearly ready for shipment. No shipments were made until October 10 and 27 following the contract in August. The fruit was to be subject to the inspection of the buyer at Philadelphia and New York; they did not all reach destination until November 21, following the date of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Barber Milling Co. v. Leichthammer Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Rees v. R. A. Bowers Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Tacony Iron Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Gilbert v. AyoobSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919