Blank v. Shoemaker
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Blank v. Shoemaker, 65 Pa. Super. 255 (1916)
1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 56
Head, Henderson, Igephart, Orlad, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Blank v. Shoemaker
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The only question involved in this case is one of fact, and is tersely stated by the trial judge in submitting it to the jury, “What did this defendant agree to pay for the wagon when he bought it?” The purchase-price was disputed, as well as the effect to be given to a receipt alleged by the plaintiff to have been “in full,” and by the defendant to have been “on account.” The questions raised by the appellant are so fully answered in the opinion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial, that it is unnecessary to add anything thereto.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contract — Sale—Evidence as to purchase-price. In an action to recover forty dollars, a balance alleged to be due on the sale of a wagon, where the plaintiff avers that the selling price was sixty dollars, and the defendant avers that the selling price was twenty dollars, and that this had been paid in full as shown by a receipt produced, and the plaintiff denies having signed the receipt, although admitting that he received twenty dollars, the defendant will not be permitted to show what was the market value of the wagon at the time of the sale.