Sternbergh v. Chickies Iron Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Sternbergh v. Chickies Iron Co.

26 A. 812, 156 Pa. 34, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1305

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 7, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 44

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A. 812 (Sternbergh v. Chickies Iron Co.) 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

Sternbergh v. Chickies Iron Co., 26 A. 812, 156 Pa. 34, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1305 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The only question presented by this record is whether the court erred in refusing to take off the judgment of nonsuit.

We have fully considered the plaintiffs’ testimony, in connection with the propositions so ably contended for by their learned counsel, and are not convinced that the case should have been submitted to the jury. On the contrary, we find nothing in the testimony that would have warranted the jury in rendering a verdict in their favor for the amount of their claim or any part thereof. There is no sufficient evidence of any warranty, by defendant, of the quality of the iron it contracted to deliver, nor any sufficient evidence of rescission of the contract by plaintiffs. If they ever had a right to rescind, they failed to exercise it within a reasonable time.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The only question presented by this record is whether the court erred in refusing to take off the judgment of nonsuit.

We have fully considered the plaintiffs’ testimony, in connection with the propositions so ably contended for by their learned counsel, and are not convinced that the case should have been submitted to the jury. On the contrary, we find nothing in the testimony that would have warranted the jury in rendering a verdict in their favor for the amount of their claim or any part thereof. There is no sufficient evidence of any warranty, by defendant, of the quality of the iron it contracted to deliver, nor any sufficient evidence of rescission of the contract by plaintiffs. If they ever had a right to rescind, they failed to exercise it within a reasonable time.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A. 812, 156 Pa. 34, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sternbergh-v-chickies-iron-co-pa-1893.