Allen Hall v. Roberts

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Allen Hall v. Roberts

85 Pa. Super. 279, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 2, 1925

DocketAppeal, 17

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 Pa. Super. 279 (Allen Hall v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen Hall v. Roberts, 85 Pa. Super. 279, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257 (Pa. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

There was evidence produced on the trial of the action from which a jury — or in this case the referee — might find that the order for a carload of cantaloupes, a carload of potatoes and a carload of peaches constituted one contract: Weeks v. Crie, 95 Me. 458, 48 Atl. 107; Garfield v. Paris, 96 U. S. 557; Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wendell (N. Y.) 431; Jenness v. Wendel, 51 N. H. 63; Coffman v. Hampton,.2 W. & S. 377; and the referee having so found, it follows that the delivery to and acceptance by the defendant of the carload of cantaloupes and his payment therefor constituted such án acceptance and receipt of part of the goods contracted to be sold as to permit an action against the defendant upon the carload of peaches without any note or memorandum in writing signed by him: Sales Act of May 19, 1915, P. L. 543, section 4.

The amendment to the plaintiff’s statement permitted by. the court after the testimony was closed amounted to nothing more than a formulation of the pleadings so as to conform to the testimony: Wall v. Boyal Society of Good Fellows, 179 Pa. 355, 368; it did not change the issue or go outside of the testimony which was already *281 in: Pittsburgh-Texas G. & O. Co. v. Adams, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 511. It was such an amendment as has frequently been allowed even in the appellate courts.

On the other hand, the amendment to the affidavit of defense offered by the defendant, more than a week after the testimony had been closed and the plaintiffs and their witnesses had gone back to their homes, was such an amendment as raised a new issue and would have required the reopening of the case and its trial upon a wholly different theory. No error was committed in refusing such an amendment at that stage of the proceedings: Williams v. Williams, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 192.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

There was evidence produced on the trial of the action from which a jury — or in this case the referee — might find that the order for a carload of cantaloupes, a carload of potatoes and a carload of peaches constituted one contract: Weeks v. Crie, 95 Me. 458, 48 Atl. 107; Garfield v. Paris, 96 U. S. 557; Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wendell (N. Y.) 431; Jenness v. Wendel, 51 N. H. 63; Coffman v. Hampton,.2 W. & S. 377; and the referee having so found, it follows that the delivery to and acceptance by the defendant of the carload of cantaloupes and his payment therefor constituted such án acceptance and receipt of part of the goods contracted to be sold as to permit an action against the defendant upon the carload of peaches without any note or memorandum in writing signed by him: Sales Act of May 19, 1915, P. L. 543, section 4.

The amendment to the plaintiff’s statement permitted by. the court after the testimony was closed amounted to nothing more than a formulation of the pleadings so as to conform to the testimony: Wall v. Boyal Society of Good Fellows, 179 Pa. 355, 368; it did not change the issue or go outside of the testimony which was already *281 in: Pittsburgh-Texas G. & O. Co. v. Adams, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 511. It was such an amendment as has frequently been allowed even in the appellate courts.

On the other hand, the amendment to the affidavit of defense offered by the defendant, more than a week after the testimony had been closed and the plaintiffs and their witnesses had gone back to their homes, was such an amendment as raised a new issue and would have required the reopening of the case and its trial upon a wholly different theory. No error was committed in refusing such an amendment at that stage of the proceedings: Williams v. Williams, 79 Pa. Superior Ct. 192.

The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 Pa. Super. 279, 1925 Pa. Super. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-hall-v-roberts-pasuperct-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack