Skip to main content
· 12/31/1903

Charles E. Dustin Co. v. St. Petersburg Inv. Co.

Citations

  • 126 F. 816
  • 13 Pa. D. 567
  • 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5206

Syllabus

<p>1. Sales — Inherent Defects in Machinery Purchased — Injury to Other Maohin ery — Set- Off.</p> <p>Where a boiler, which was part of machinery purchased, burst by reason of inherent defects, of which the plaintiffs, the vendors, should have known, in an action for the price the defendants are entitled to set off whatever they have expended to put the boiler in repair, as well as the damage done to other machinery, including the cost of restoring such machinery and the loss incurred by the stoppage of the works while put out of operation.</p> <p><5. Same — Failure to Deliver on Time.</p> <p>The plaintiffs, having been notified of the necessity for a prompt delivery and of the loss which delay would entail, were answerable for that which was occasioned to the defendants by the failure to deliver on time, and by the incomplete and defective condition in which the machinery arrived.</p> <p>3. Same — Damages—Profits—Value of Use of Plant to be Equipped.</p> <p>The damages for the failure to deliver on time machinery designed for an electric railway and light plant is not to be measured by the uncertain profits which might have been made therefrom meanwhile, but by the value of the use of the plant for the period lost.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Where a buyer of machinery was entitled to set off, against the price, loss of the value of the use of the plant during a delay in delivery, such loss included items for loss of time and services of defendants’ manager, for extra labor made necessary by reason of the delay, and for loss of orders for the installation of electric lights resulting from such delay, and hence such items could not be made the subject of separate claims.</p> <p>■5. Same — Allegation—Indefiniteness.</p> <p>In an action for the price of machinery, including a boiler, which, when delivered, was so defective that it burst, an allegation of set-off claiming $271.25 for extra fuel to make the boiler which the buyer then had generate sufficient steam to run the

Judges: Archbald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.