Thomasville Chair Co. v. Newman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Thomasville Chair Co. v. Newman

156 A. 894, 103 Pa. Super. 93, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 19

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1931

DocketAppeal 362

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A. 894 (Thomasville Chair Co. v. Newman) 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

Thomasville Chair Co. v. Newman, 156 A. 894, 103 Pa. Super. 93, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 19 (Pa. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff brought suit to recover for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The articles consisted almost entirely of parts of furniture, such as seats for chairs, posts, panels, etc. The affidavit of defense stated that the goods sent by the plaintiff were in exchange for goods previously ordered by the defendant and which had been paid for in full and returned, and according to the customary dealings of the parties, as well as the custom of the trade, the seller and manufacturer were required to re-upholster the mismated chairs or send the necessary parts to repair the damage. The defendant attached to his affidavit a list of the goods which had been returned to the plaintiff.

The lower court was of the opinion that an opportunity should be given the defendant to establish by testimony the alleged custom and usage between the parties and to develop the facts set forth by him in his affidavit. The case is not so clear as to require our intervention. “It is only when the right to relief is clear assuming the facts set forth by the defendant to be true that we will reverse”: Sipp v. Phila. Insurance Co., 293 Pa. 292.

The order is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff brought suit to recover for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The articles consisted almost entirely of parts of furniture, such as seats for chairs, posts, panels, etc. The affidavit of defense stated that the goods sent by the plaintiff were in exchange for goods previously ordered by the defendant and which had been paid for in full and returned, and according to the customary dealings of the parties, as well as the custom of the trade, the seller and manufacturer were required to re-upholster the mismated chairs or send the necessary parts to repair the damage. The defendant attached to his affidavit a list of the goods which had been returned to the plaintiff.

The lower court was of the opinion that an opportunity should be given the defendant to establish by testimony the alleged custom and usage between the parties and to develop the facts set forth by him in his affidavit. The case is not so clear as to require our intervention. “It is only when the right to relief is clear assuming the facts set forth by the defendant to be true that we will reverse”: Sipp v. Phila. Insurance Co., 293 Pa. 292.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A. 894, 103 Pa. Super. 93, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomasville-chair-co-v-newman-pasuperct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack