Philadelphia Drying Machinery Co. v. Kummerer

Citations

• 56 Pa. Super. 24
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 405

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Sale—Testing machine — Damages—Certificate to defendant.</p> <p>1. In. an action to recover the balance of the purchase price of a drying machine sold by plaintiff to defendant, a certificate for the defendant will be sustained where the evidence shows that plaintiff requested the defendant to supply cotton cloth for testing purposes, that the defendant did so, and that the plaintiff’s employee, in testing the machine destroyed a lot of such cloth belonging to defendant’s customers by reason of a defect in the construction of the machine; and this is the case although the contract provided that if the machine should not do the work specified, the plaintiff should remove all defects therein necessary to secure a full compliance with the contract at its own proper cost, which shall be the extent of its liability.</p> <p>2. In such a case it is immaterial that the defendant’s liability for damages to its customers had not been liquidated or paid, inasmuch as the jury trying the case could properly assess them.</p> <p>Damages — Unliquidated damages — Damages for nonpayment — Interest — Case for jury.</p> <p>3. When damages claimed for injuries are unliquidated, it is error for the court to instruct the jury, as a matter of law, that the jury could add six per cent on the damages found, to compensate the defendant for the delay. The amount of such compensation is to be determined by the jury under all the circumstances of the ease. The appellate court will not, however, reverse a judgment on this ground, but will sipiply strike off the interest if the record discloses the exact amount of interest added by the jury, and counsel states a preference to having the interest stricken out instead of a reversal.</p>