Famous v. Thomas Yearsley Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Famous v. Thomas Yearsley Co.

80 Pa. Super. 58, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 23, 1922

DocketAppeal, No. 200

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 Pa. Super. 58 (Famous v. Thomas Yearsley Co.) 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

Famous v. Thomas Yearsley Co., 80 Pa. Super. 58, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

In this case the buyer of an electric motor who had paid the purchase price prior to shipment, alleging [60]*60breach of warranty, sued for damages. The court which tried the case without a jury, entered judgment for the plaintiff for $176. Three assignments of error are filed: 1. that plaintiff was not qualified to testify to the market value of the motor delivered; 2. without plaintiff’s evidence of market value, nominal damages only may be awarded; 8. that a new trial should have been granted.

Plaintiff testified he was an electrical engineer, engaged in buying and selling electrical machinery, and that he had been so engaged for thirty years; he exhibited familiarity with electric motors and said he knew the market prices of different types of motors, new and second-hand, not only generally but particularly at the time of the breach of warranty, having sold twenty motors about that time. His testimony was properly received : Katzenberg v. Star, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 45. We note he was not substantially contradicted.

That conclusion also disposes of the contention that only nominal damages could be allowed. The court was the trier of the fact and as there was evidence to support its conclusion, it binds us. As no abuse of discretion is suggested, we need not review the refusal to grant1 a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

In this case the buyer of an electric motor who had paid the purchase price prior to shipment, alleging [60]*60breach of warranty, sued for damages. The court which tried the case without a jury, entered judgment for the plaintiff for $176. Three assignments of error are filed: 1. that plaintiff was not qualified to testify to the market value of the motor delivered; 2. without plaintiff’s evidence of market value, nominal damages only may be awarded; 8. that a new trial should have been granted.

Plaintiff testified he was an electrical engineer, engaged in buying and selling electrical machinery, and that he had been so engaged for thirty years; he exhibited familiarity with electric motors and said he knew the market prices of different types of motors, new and second-hand, not only generally but particularly at the time of the breach of warranty, having sold twenty motors about that time. His testimony was properly received : Katzenberg v. Star, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 45. We note he was not substantially contradicted.

That conclusion also disposes of the contention that only nominal damages could be allowed. The court was the trier of the fact and as there was evidence to support its conclusion, it binds us. As no abuse of discretion is suggested, we need not review the refusal to grant1 a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Pa. Super. 58, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/famous-v-thomas-yearsley-co-pasuperct-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack