Liggett v. Ritter

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 405
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 76

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Judgment—Rule to open judgment — Suit on warranty —Pending suit — Plea in abatement.</p> <p>1. Where judgment is entered on a judgment note given for the purchase price of a horse, and the defendant enters a rule to open the judgment, but subsequently for reasons of his own pays the judgment, and thereafter brings a suit against the seller of the horse for a breach of warranty contained in the contract of sale, the fact that the purchaser had taken a rule to open the judgment and had subsequently paid the judgment, does not preclude him from maintaining an action upon the warranty; and this is the case although'the former action was not actually discontinued of rec'ord.</p> <p>2. In such a case the payment of the debt had the effect of a discontinuance of the application to open the judgment; and even if it had not, the remedy of the defendant in the second suit was by plea in abatement, or by an application for a stay of proceedings. If he failed to avail himself of these remedies, he could not, after a trial on the merits, use the pendency of another action in bar of the plaintiff’s right to recover.</p> <p>Contract — Sale—Wairanty—Sale of horse.</p> <p>3. In an action for a breach of warranty in the sale of a horse, the measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the horse as warranted to be on the day of the sale, and the market value of the animal as it was afterwards found to be.</p>