Erickson v. Schauble

Erie County Court Common Pleas

Erickson v. Schauble

7 Pa. D. & C. 618, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 196

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County

DecidedNovember 5, 1925

DocketNo. 486

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Pa. D. & C. 618 (Erickson v. Schauble) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Erie County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erickson v. Schauble, 7 Pa. D. & C. 618, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 196 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Rossiter, P. J.,

The plaintiff brings this action to recover $100, the amount deposited with the defendant on a contract to purchase a Marmon automobile. The contract attached to the plaintiff’s statement provides for the style of car, price, etc., and contains the following provision: “If the car is not acceptable to purchaser, deal is to be declared void and deposit refunded.” The statement also avers that the plaintiff inspected a new Marmon automobile in the City of Cleveland, Ohio, of exactly the same model and the same in every respect as the automobile described in the contract, and from said inspection determined that the automobile proposed to be delivered to him was not acceptable. To this statement the defendant interposes a statutory demurrer to the effect that the contract provided that “No agreement, verbal or otherwise, not embodied herein vrill be recognized as binding;” and, further, that the statement of plaintiff shows on its face that plaintiff did not comply with the conditions set forth in the contract by inspecting the car which it was proposed to deliver under the said contract.

In our opinion, the statement is good, in that it avers an automobile the same in every respect as that described in the contract was refused by the plaintiff. The one described in the contract, therefore, would not have been acceptable, and, hence, the provision relative to refunding the deposit above quoted became operative. The fact that the automobile was not brought here for inspection is not important, for the law does not require a party to do a useless thing.

The demurrer is, therefore, now, Jan. 5, 1926, overruled and the defendant is given ten days in which to file an affidavit of defence.

From Otto Herbst, Erie, Pa.

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

Rossiter, P. J.,

The plaintiff brings this action to recover $100, the amount deposited with the defendant on a contract to purchase a Marmon automobile. The contract attached to the plaintiff’s statement provides for the style of car, price, etc., and contains the following provision: “If the car is not acceptable to purchaser, deal is to be declared void and deposit refunded.” The statement also avers that the plaintiff inspected a new Marmon automobile in the City of Cleveland, Ohio, of exactly the same model and the same in every respect as the automobile described in the contract, and from said inspection determined that the automobile proposed to be delivered to him was not acceptable. To this statement the defendant interposes a statutory demurrer to the effect that the contract provided that “No agreement, verbal or otherwise, not embodied herein vrill be recognized as binding;” and, further, that the statement of plaintiff shows on its face that plaintiff did not comply with the conditions set forth in the contract by inspecting the car which it was proposed to deliver under the said contract.

In our opinion, the statement is good, in that it avers an automobile the same in every respect as that described in the contract was refused by the plaintiff. The one described in the contract, therefore, would not have been acceptable, and, hence, the provision relative to refunding the deposit above quoted became operative. The fact that the automobile was not brought here for inspection is not important, for the law does not require a party to do a useless thing.

The demurrer is, therefore, now, Jan. 5, 1926, overruled and the defendant is given ten days in which to file an affidavit of defence.

From Otto Herbst, Erie, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Pa. D. & C. 618, 1925 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-schauble-pactcomplerie-1925.