Brown v. Sheaffer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Brown v. Sheaffer

93 Pa. Super. 246, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 313

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1928

DocketAppeal 188

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 Pa. Super. 246 (Brown v. Sheaffer) 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

Brown v. Sheaffer, 93 Pa. Super. 246, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 313 (Pa. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Plaintiff appeals and complains that defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. was granted.

The suit was on an oral contract for the sale of tobacco of a value exceeding $500. Plaintiff got a verdict for the amount of his alleged loss on resale of the tobacco after defendant refused to accept it. The court entered judgment for defendant on the ground that no breach of contract was shown. We shall not consider the record in that light, as the contract is unenforceable; section 4 Sales Act 1915 P. L. 543. The court below thought this defense was not available because the affidavit of defense did not specifically plead it. Section 4 provides that “A contract to sell......any goods......of the value of $500 or upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless ......some note or memorandum in writing of the contract or sale be signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf.” That provision is a limitation upon the judicial authority to afford a remedy; Mfrs. Light, etc., Co. v. Lamp, 269 Pa. 517, 520.

The affidavit of defense denied that defendant made the contract sued on. The evidence showed that the whole transaction was oral. It is well settled that as the statute prescribes that such oral contract is not enforceable, the statute need not be pleaded: Josephson v. Weintraub, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 14, 18; Mfrs. Light, etc., Co. v. Lamp, supra; Bayard v. Knitting Mills, 290 Pa. 79.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Plaintiff appeals and complains that defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v. was granted.

The suit was on an oral contract for the sale of tobacco of a value exceeding $500. Plaintiff got a verdict for the amount of his alleged loss on resale of the tobacco after defendant refused to accept it. The court entered judgment for defendant on the ground that no breach of contract was shown. We shall not consider the record in that light, as the contract is unenforceable; section 4 Sales Act 1915 P. L. 543. The court below thought this defense was not available because the affidavit of defense did not specifically plead it. Section 4 provides that “A contract to sell......any goods......of the value of $500 or upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless ......some note or memorandum in writing of the contract or sale be signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf.” That provision is a limitation upon the judicial authority to afford a remedy; Mfrs. Light, etc., Co. v. Lamp, 269 Pa. 517, 520.

The affidavit of defense denied that defendant made the contract sued on. The evidence showed that the whole transaction was oral. It is well settled that as the statute prescribes that such oral contract is not enforceable, the statute need not be pleaded: Josephson v. Weintraub, 78 Pa. Superior Ct. 14, 18; Mfrs. Light, etc., Co. v. Lamp, supra; Bayard v. Knitting Mills, 290 Pa. 79.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Pa. Super. 246, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-sheaffer-pasuperct-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack