Diehl Manufacturing Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

Citations

• 49 Pa. Super. 257
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 317

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Sale—Written instrument — Parol evidence.</p> <p>1. Where at the execution of a -writing, a stipulation has been entered into, a condition annexed, or a promise made by word of mouth upon the faith of which the writing has been executed, parol evidence is admissible though it may vary and materially change the terms of the contract.</p> <p>2. In an action to recover for goods sold and delivered on an order in writing, although it appears that the order provided that “this contract to be binding must be signed by the purchaser and countersigned by an authorized representative of the seller,” and the order was thus signed, the defendant may show that at the time of the execution of the order he refused to sign it unless the plaintiff allowed a certain rebate, that plaintiff’s manager who had full power to bind the plaintiff agreed to such allowance in order to secure the contract, and that the defendant would not otherwise have signed the contract.</p> <p>Appeals — Affidavit of defense — Discharge of rule.</p> <p>3. An appeal taken from an order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, should not be taken except to correct clear error of law on the part of the court below. Where such an appeal is dismissed the appellate court will not attempt to prejudge the precise question that may thereafter be presented on another appeal after final judgment following a trial.</p>