Ward v. United Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ward v. United Coal Co.

112 A. 16, 269 Pa. 259, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 798

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 31, 1920

DocketAppeal, No. 181

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A. 16 (Ward v. United Coal 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

Ward v. United Coal Co., 112 A. 16, 269 Pa. 259, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 798 (Pa. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s claim was for damages for the failure of the defendant to sell and deliver a locomotive to him. The terms of payment were not open to dispute. They were, as stated in a letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated November 17, 1917, “$650 net cash upon presentation of the bill of lading.” Later the latter wrote to the former, stating, “Thirty days from date from receipt of your invoice with bill of lading attached thereto, we will be pleased to mail you Our check for the purchase price of this machine, namely, $650 all in accordance with your favor of Nov. 17, 1917.” This justified defendant’s remission of the contract, and nothing was de[261]*261yeloped at the trial that called for a refusal of defendant’s request for the direction of a verdict in its favor.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff’s claim was for damages for the failure of the defendant to sell and deliver a locomotive to him. The terms of payment were not open to dispute. They were, as stated in a letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated November 17, 1917, “$650 net cash upon presentation of the bill of lading.” Later the latter wrote to the former, stating, “Thirty days from date from receipt of your invoice with bill of lading attached thereto, we will be pleased to mail you Our check for the purchase price of this machine, namely, $650 all in accordance with your favor of Nov. 17, 1917.” This justified defendant’s remission of the contract, and nothing was de[261]*261yeloped at the trial that called for a refusal of defendant’s request for the direction of a verdict in its favor.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A. 16, 269 Pa. 259, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-united-coal-co-pa-1920.