Manhattan Brass Co. v. Reger

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Manhattan Brass Co. v. Reger

32 A. 64, 168 Pa. 644, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 849

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 30, 1895

DocketAppeal, No. 18

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A. 64 (Manhattan Brass Co. v. Reger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manhattan Brass Co. v. Reger, 32 A. 64, 168 Pa. 644, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 849 (Pa. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

For some years prior to March 1, 1891, P. A. Reger and C. A. Reger were partners trading as Perry A. Reger & Bro. On the date named the partnership was dissolved, and a new partnership, the members of which were P. A. Reger and C. T. Hickman was formed, and the same firm name was retained. The statement as to the financial condition of Perry A. Reger & Bro., which it is claimed was the basis of the credit given, was made by the old firm to a mercantile agency on Dec. 30, 1890, and not communicated to the plaintiff until July 30, 1891. The merchandise in question was sold to the new firm in June, 1891.

From these facts it follows that the learned judge was clearly right in directing a verdict for the defendant in the inter-pleader. The right to rescind the contract of sale was based upon the alleged falsity of a statement made not in relation to the defendant in the execution, but in relation to another party, and not communicated to the plaintiff until after the goods were sold. The facts do not raise the legal questions elaborately argued by the appellant’s counsel, and it is unnecessary to consider them.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Fell,

For some years prior to March 1, 1891, P. A. Reger and C. A. Reger were partners trading as Perry A. Reger & Bro. On the date named the partnership was dissolved, and a new partnership, the members of which were P. A. Reger and C. T. Hickman was formed, and the same firm name was retained. The statement as to the financial condition of Perry A. Reger & Bro., which it is claimed was the basis of the credit given, was made by the old firm to a mercantile agency on Dec. 30, 1890, and not communicated to the plaintiff until July 30, 1891. The merchandise in question was sold to the new firm in June, 1891.

From these facts it follows that the learned judge was clearly right in directing a verdict for the defendant in the inter-pleader. The right to rescind the contract of sale was based upon the alleged falsity of a statement made not in relation to the defendant in the execution, but in relation to another party, and not communicated to the plaintiff until after the goods were sold. The facts do not raise the legal questions elaborately argued by the appellant’s counsel, and it is unnecessary to consider them.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A. 64, 168 Pa. 644, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-brass-co-v-reger-pa-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack