Wilkinson v. Stettler

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Wilkinson v. Stettler

46 Pa. Super. 407, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 285

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 17, 1911·No. Appeal, No. 14·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are all of opinion that the words alleged to have been used by the vendor at the time of the sale do not import an express warranty of the truth of the representation; and as no circumstances were shown from which the jury [411] could legitimately infer that the vendor intended them to be accepted by the vendee as a warranty, the learned trial judge committed no error in entering a compulsory non-suit and refusing to take it off. This conclusion is so well supported by the opinion filed by him and the Pennsylvania decisions therein cited that further discussion by us would be mere repetition.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

We are all of opinion that the words alleged to have been used by the vendor at the time of the sale do not import an express warranty of the truth of the representation; and as no circumstances were shown from which the jury [411] could legitimately infer that the vendor intended them to be accepted by the vendee as a warranty, the learned trial judge committed no error in entering a compulsory non-suit and refusing to take it off. This conclusion is so well supported by the opinion filed by him and the Pennsylvania decisions therein cited that further discussion by us would be mere repetition.

Judgment affirmed.

Wilkinson v. Stettler, 46 Pa. Super. 407, 1911 Pa. Super. LEXIS 285 (Pa. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

46 Pa. Super. 407 (Wilkinson v. Stettler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related