Great American Tea Co. v. McCabe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Great American Tea Co. v. McCabe

94 Pa. Super. 573, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 22, 1928

DocketAppeal 62

StatusPublished

This text of 94 Pa. Super. 573 (Great American Tea Co. v. McCabe) 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

Great American Tea Co. v. McCabe, 94 Pa. Super. 573, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250 (Pa. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion bt

Henderson, J.,

One of the defendants was employed as a salesman by the plaintiff company. The latter required him to give a bond of surety to insure the faithful discharge of his duty. The bond was given March 16, 1926. Mc-Cabe worked for the company at different places, and in the spring of 1927 was located at Philipsburg in Centre County. After he had been there about six weeks a dispute arose between him and a district supervisor, or agent, of the plaintiff with respect to his account, the latter claiming that there was a shortage of about $149. McCabe was charged with merchandise he received from the plaintiff and credited with the proceeds of sales made by him at the store of which he had charge. He denied that there was anything due the plaintiff; one of the items disputed by him being a double charge for merchandise shipped. The evidence relates to an account extending over several weeks, and involves the inquiry whether all the merchandise charged to the defendant were received by him or not, as well as some other questions as to the ‘accuracy of the plaintiff’s account. On an application to open the judgment to permit the defendant to show the actual condition of the account, the court on hearing made the rule absolute. We fail to find good reason for reversing that action. The obligation of the appellees was not for the undefined payments of money at a particular time, the liability was conditional; the enforcement of the obligation by entering a judgment on the warrant of attorney attached to the bond shut the door against the defendants to correct any mistake that may have existed with respect to the charge made *575 against the salesman and the credits given him unless that can be done in the manner resorted to in this proceeding.

We affirm the action of the court at the cost of the appellant.

Note — This opinion was written by Judge Henderson and adopted by the court as its judgment before his death though filed thereafter.

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

Opinion bt

Henderson, J.,

One of the defendants was employed as a salesman by the plaintiff company. The latter required him to give a bond of surety to insure the faithful discharge of his duty. The bond was given March 16, 1926. Mc-Cabe worked for the company at different places, and in the spring of 1927 was located at Philipsburg in Centre County. After he had been there about six weeks a dispute arose between him and a district supervisor, or agent, of the plaintiff with respect to his account, the latter claiming that there was a shortage of about $149. McCabe was charged with merchandise he received from the plaintiff and credited with the proceeds of sales made by him at the store of which he had charge. He denied that there was anything due the plaintiff; one of the items disputed by him being a double charge for merchandise shipped. The evidence relates to an account extending over several weeks, and involves the inquiry whether all the merchandise charged to the defendant were received by him or not, as well as some other questions as to the ‘accuracy of the plaintiff’s account. On an application to open the judgment to permit the defendant to show the actual condition of the account, the court on hearing made the rule absolute. We fail to find good reason for reversing that action. The obligation of the appellees was not for the undefined payments of money at a particular time, the liability was conditional; the enforcement of the obligation by entering a judgment on the warrant of attorney attached to the bond shut the door against the defendants to correct any mistake that may have existed with respect to the charge made *575 against the salesman and the credits given him unless that can be done in the manner resorted to in this proceeding.

We affirm the action of the court at the cost of the appellant.

Note — This opinion was written by Judge Henderson and adopted by the court as its judgment before his death though filed thereafter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Pa. Super. 573, 1928 Pa. Super. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-american-tea-co-v-mccabe-pasuperct-1928.